te kunenga ki pūrehuroa academic audit report - aqateaching nexus audits during 2000-2001, and...
TRANSCRIPT
Massey University Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa
Academic
audit report Cycle 4 December 2008
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit
Te Wāhanga Tātari
Massey University
Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa
Academic audit report
Cycle 4
December 2008
This audit report is the first report of Cycle 4 academic audits to be administered
by the New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit-Te Wāhanga Tātari during the period
2008-2012
Cycle 4 academic audits are whole-of-institution reports, and follow Cycle 1 audits on whole-
of-institution during 1995-1998, Cycle 2 audits on research, research students, research-
teaching nexus audits during 2000-2001, and Cycle 3 audits on teaching quality, programme
delivery, the achievement of learning outcomes during 2003-2008.
The hardcopy printed version of this report is the version authorised by the Board.
An electronic version of the report is posted on the Unit’s website as a Portable Document
Format [PDF] file.
© 2008 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit-Te Wāhanga Tātari
Postal address:
P O Box 9747
Marion Square
Wellington 6141
New Zealand
Location:
Level 3
West Block
Education House
178 Willis Street
Wellington
New Zealand
Website:
http://www.nzuaau.ac.nz
ISBN 978 – 0 – 9582872 – 1 – 0
Q:NZUAAU\030\07\Report\\MasseyReportFinal
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari iii
Preface
Background
The New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit was established in 1993 to consider and review New
Zealand universities’ mechanisms for monitoring and enhancing the academic quality and standards
which are necessary for achieving their stated aims and objectives, and to comment on the extent to which
procedures in place are applied effectively and reflect good practice in maintaining quality.1 Since its
establishment, the Unit has administered three complete cycles of academic audit.
▪ Cycle 1 academic audits were full institutional audits of the then seven universities; they were
conducted during the period 1995-1998.
▪ Cycle 2 academic audits focussed on research policy and management, the research-teaching
nexus and the support of postgraduate students, as well as a theme specific to each university;
they were conducted during the period 2000-2001. In 2001, a full institutional academic audit
was conducted at the eighth New Zealand university – the newly-created Auckland University
of Technology.
▪ Cycle 3 academic audits focussed on teaching quality, programme delivery, and the
achievement of learning outcomes, during the period 2003-2008.
The present cycle of academic audits – Cycle 4, of which this is the first – are full institutional audits, and
are being administered over the period 2008-2012.2
The process of audit
The process of audit requires a self-assessment which informs an audit portfolio (structured with respect
to the Cycle 4 framework) in which the university evaluates its progress towards achieving its goals and
objectives related to the focus of the audit, identifies areas for improvement, and details intended plans,
strategies and activities with respect to enhancement initiatives. After examining the portfolio, and
seeking further information if necessary, the Audit Panel conducts interviews in an Audit Visit to the
university to seek verification of materials read, and to inform an audit report which is structured in
accordance with the framework for the conduct of Cycle 4 audits as set down in the Unit’s 2007
Academic audit manual.3 The report commends good practice and makes recommendations intended to
assist the university in its own programme of continuous improvement of quality and added value in the
activities identified by the Unit as the focus of Cycle 4 audits.
Soon after the publication of the audit report, the Unit discusses with the university the preferred
procedures to be used in the follow-up to audit and the monitoring of follow-up activities.
Massey University academic audit
Massey University agreed to an academic site visit in September 2008, requiring the submission of the
self-review portfolio by the fourth week in July 2008. The panel appointed to carry out the academic
audit of the University met in Wellington on 25 August 2008 for a Preliminary Meeting at which it
evaluated the material it had received, and determined further materials required. The Chair of the panel
and the Director of the Unit undertook a Planning Visit to the University on 19 September 2008 to discuss
1 See Appendix 3 for the Unit's complete terms of reference, its vision and its objective with respect to academic
audit. 2 See Appendix 2 for the framework for Cycle 4 academic audits.
3 John M. Jennings (compiler), Academic audit manual for use in Cycle 4 academic audits by the New Zealand
Universities Academic Audit Unit, Te Wāhanga Tātari, December 2007, Wellington, the Unit, 2007.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
iv New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
the supply of the further materials requested as well as arrangements for the site visit. The four-day site
visit by the whole panel to Massey University took place on Monday-Thursday 6-9 October 2008, hosted
by the Vice-Chancellor, Hon Steve Maharey. This was preceded by a one-day site visit to Massey
University Albany (Auckland) by some of the panel, on Friday 3 October 2008. The whole panel
conducted interviews at Massey University Wellington on the afternoon of 6 October. During the site
visits, the panel interviewed just over 150 members of staff, students and stakeholders.
The findings of the panel as expressed in this report are based on the written information supplied by the
University and on the information gained through interviews conducted during the site visit.
John M. Jennings
Director
December 2008
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari v
Contents
Preface iii
Summary vii
Commendations, recommendations and affirmations xiii
Preamble xix
1 General
1.1 Massey University 1
1.2 A vision for the future 2
1.3 One University 3
1.4 Goals, objectives and plans 6
1.5 Other factors 8
2 Teaching and learning
2.1 Qualifications portfolio 9
2.2 Distance education and e-learning 10
2.3 Equivalence policy 12
2.4 Student support 13
2.5 International students 14
2.6 Library 14
2.7 Information technology 15
2.8 Assessment and plagiarism 15
2.9 Student achievement 16
2.10 Student evaluation of teaching and papers 16
3 Research environment
3.1 Research capability, performance and reputation 18
3.2 Research students 19
4 Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Pasifika
4.1 Māori and Pasifika education 21
4.2 Kia Maia 22
4.3 Pasifika@Massey 23
5 Academic and support staff
5.1 Human resources 25
5.2 Workload 25
5.3 Professional support and development 25
5.4 Performance appraisal and promotion 27
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
vi New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
6 Institutional quality assurance
6.1 Quality assurance 28
6.2 Qualification reviews 28
6.3 Reviews and planning 29
7 Management and administrative support
7.1 Management and communication 31
7.2 Organisational capability and capacity 32
8 Stakeholder engagement and external academic
collaborations and partnerships
8.1 Stakeholder engagement 34
8.2 Strategic collaboration 34
8.3 Commercialisation 36
9 Internationalisation
9.1 Internationalisation strategies 37
Acknowledgements 40
Audit panel 40
Appendices
1 Massey University key improvements 41
2 Cycle 4 indicative framework 45
3 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit 47
Summary
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari vii
Summary
General
Massey University Massey University operates through a matrix of campuses and Colleges and there
are three modes of delivery of academic papers – face-to-face, distance education,
and block course teaching. The matrix creates a complexity of administration that
is well recognised by the University. It is not easy for the University to develop
an integrating culture bringing together the different campuses, their histories and
their cultures, and to manage the resulting tensions.
A vision for the
future
There is considerable excitement across the University over the appointment of
the new Vice-Chancellor who had formally taken up his position only a few days
before the site visit by the audit panel. The Vice-Chancellor is commended for
articulating a far-reaching and ambitious vision for the University, but the panel
recommends that the University reconsiders and prioritises its targets and
strategies.
One University The University is challenged by the task of finding ways to achieve the ‘one
University’ culture and to manage the creative tensions that arise from the
diversity resulting from expansion and mergers. The University has recognised
that there are issues around communication, and the panel recommends that a
University-wide information service co-ordination structure be established to
enhance the capacity for distributing core information services. The panel
commends the Vice-Chancellor’s decision to develop a national office. Attention
must be paid to reconfiguring the Academic Board, involving strong leadership,
so that it can provide a major forum for debate and resolution of academic items
and provide a forum for driving the ‘one University’ policy.
Goals, objectives
and plans
The three main high-level documents – the Massey Way, the Investment Plan, and
the Road to 2020 – are all-embracing and ambitious. There is some work yet to
be done to drive the alignment across planning and implementation documents.
The panel affirms the University’s intention to revise the implementation
documents with target key performance indicators, and notes that present
performance indicators do not always include measures of progress directly
related to the stated goals, objectives and strategic priorities.
Other factors Reports indicate declining enrolments, and planning documents set high
expectations for increased enrolments, but the panel was not aware of strategies to
assist with this. Considerable focus on the Performance-Based Research Fund
would appear to be placing pressures on academic staff workload management.
Teaching and learning
Qualifications
portfolio
The University has a strategic priority to focus and differentiate its academic
portfolio around the University’s academic strengths. Rationalisation should
strengthen the quality of its academic offerings.
Distance education
and e-learning
The University has a strategic priority to improve its university-level distance
education provision, and another strategic priority to strengthen its e-learning
capacity. The University recognises that teaching and learning generally requires
underpinning by robust e-learning technologies and integrated e-learning. The
University also recognises that the aspirations for the use of e-learning are not yet
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
viii New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
matched with the appropriate support infrastructure, and has improvement
initiatives in this area. The panel recommends that in confirming the strategic
importance of distance education to the University’s mission, the University needs
to understand markets; recognise the pedagogical challenges for distance learners
and implement supports and services as appropriate; embrace the changing face of
distance education delivery; and invest in appropriate human and material
resources. The University should also monitor the impact and effectiveness of
investments in technical and pedagogical support to ensure improved educational
success and learner outcomes.
Equivalence policy The panel commends the University on the successful implementation and
management of an equivalence policy that is aimed at ensuring the same learner
outcomes regardless of delivery method or campus. There remains, however, an
‘equivalence’ challenge for the University with respect to offering papers
offshore.
Student support The panel heard that the agencies that provide support advice are effective in what
they do, and that the Extramural Students’ Society undertakes impressive work in
supporting and advocating on behalf of distance education learners.
International
students
The recent audit of the University’s compliance against the Code of practice for
the pastoral care of international students, administered by the New Zealand
Universities Academic Audit Unit, found that the University was fulfilling its
responsibilities to international students more than adequately.
Library The panel commends the Library for its excellent support for distance education
learners. The Library provides excellent services to staff and students, and the
University is attending to the uneven standard of library buildings across the three
campuses.
Information
technology
Information technology is campus-driven with overall management by the
Information Technology Services. The panel is of the view that Information
Technology Services should have input into new academic programmes and
research proposals.
Assessment and
plagiarism
The University is implementing a new assessment policy. The panel recommends
that the University implements a stand-alone policy on plagiarism that treats
plagiarism in the same way as other forms of academic misconduct.
Student
achievement
The University has been improving its capability to monitor student achievement
and success.
Student evaluation
of teaching and
papers
The chief survey instrument – Student Evaluation of Content, Administration and
Teaching (SECAT) – underwent review and other survey instruments have been
examined. The panel affirms the University’s intention to participate in the
Australasian Survey of Student engagement, improve the Graduate Destination
Survey Questionnaire and the delivery of a teaching evaluation system; and
recommends that the University gives priority to the implementation of an
improved SECAT, makes the results more generally available, and makes known
how the results are used.
Research environment
Research
capability,
The University has a strategic priority to advance its research capability,
performance and reputation, which is affirmed by the panel. Responsibility for
Summary
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari ix
performance and
reputation
research improvement lies within the Colleges. It was recognised that the
Performance-Based Research Fund had guided departments in how to achieve
their own strategic goals in research.
Research students The New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit’s recent monitoring exercise
of the University’s admission standards and supervision of international PhD
students found that the University had detailed processes in all aspects of
admission and supervision which were applied to all students, domestic as well as
international. The Graduate Research School administers doctoral programmes.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Pasifika
Māori and Pasifika
education
The University has a strategic priority to enhance academic outcomes for Māori
and Pasifika learners.
Kia Maia The panel commends the Kia Maia strategy and the emphasis on capability
building and embedding the implementation of initiatives. The panel
recommends a stocktake of progress be undertaken in 2010.
Pasifika@Massey The panel commends the development of a comprehensive and coherent Pasifika
strategy and the University’s commitment to its implementation. More specific
targets across campuses and Colleges are required and the panel supports the
University’s intention for more strategic collaboration within and outside of the
University.
Academic and support staff
Workload The panel appreciates there are different workload requirements for different
discipline areas, but was concerned that the University’s monitoring appears to
amount to little more than ensuring each department has a policy, regardless of its
nature. The panel recommends a more systematic form of on-going University-
wide monitoring.
Professional
support and
development
The purpose and functions of the Centre for Academic Development and e-
Learning – which is the major professional development unit for academic and
general staff – are to be reviewed. The work undertaken by the staff of the Centre
is appreciated by academics, although access to the Centre’s courses across all
campuses is a difficulty. The panel affirms the University’s intention that staff
training and development work should be more strategic, and recommends that
the staff responsible for training and development should hold academic
appointments.
Performance
appraisal and
promotion
There is general satisfaction with the Performance Review and Planning process
and the implementation of the promotions policy, although in the latter, there
were concerns expressed about the lack of feedback as to why applications do not
succeed.
Institutional quality assurance
Quality assurance Pro Vice-Chancellors and Colleges are responsible for the monitoring of research,
teaching, staffing issues and data related to student achievement. Data are
collected, but little was reported by the University on mechanisms in plans for the
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
x New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
evaluation of data. The Portfolio for this academic audit was lacking an evidence
base upon which the panel could assess its claims about quality and performance.
Many of the University’s policies and procedures allow for freedom of
interpretation and application by Colleges.
Qualification
reviews
The University places emphasis on the review of qualifications. Generally they
appear to be effective instruments of change, but there needs to be a closer
institutional monitoring of the follow-up to qualification reviews with a final sign-
off by the College and the Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Academic).4
Reviews and
planning
The panel recommends that the University develops and implements an
overarching quality assurance framework that includes systematic external
reviews of key functional areas. The University should also develop strong and
effective links at institutional level between quality assurance processes and
strategic planning.
Management and administrative support
Management and
communication
The University has a number of improvement initiatives related to
communication, the optimisation of services delivery, the conduct of Council and
its subcommittees, and academic and managerial decision-making processes. The
panel affirms the University’s intention to review progress of the leadership and
management training package and recommends that professional development
and training for all general staff be facilitated, particularly in the areas of
leadership and management training.
Organisational
capability and
capacity
The University has a strategic priority to optimise the University’s organisational
capability and capacity, and has a number of improvement initiatives around
facilities and capability. The panel affirms the planned expansion of library
facilities at the Albany and Wellington campuses.
Stakeholder engagement and external academic collaborations and
partnerships
Stakeholder
engagement
Stakeholders interviewed in Palmerston North affirmed the University as a great
corporate citizen, and the University enjoys a high measure of support from local
communities.
Strategic
collaboration
The University has a strategic priority relating to strategic collaboration. The
University prides itself on its connectedness with industry, communities and other
providers. While recognising difficulties associated with financial and human
resource costs and projected benefits remaining unrealised, the University has no
improvement initiatives to address these issues.
Commercialisation The University has a strategic priority to achieve a greater optimisation of
commercial activities. The panel affirms the University’s intention to develop a
clear framework for commercialisation that includes an education programme for
staff about commercial potential.
4 Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Research) at the time of the site visit.
Summary
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari xi
Internationalisation
Internationalisation
strategies
The University has a strategic priority to implement its internationalisation
strategies with respect to world ranking, attracting and retaining quality staff and
high-achieving international students, and growing and diversifying international
markets. The new administration wishes to achieve greater clarity around the area
of internationalisation, and the panel recommends the University arrives at a clear
understanding of internationalisation and internationalisation of the curriculum
including a conceptual framework for the implementation of international
initiatives. The University has improvement initiatives around international
delivery of academic papers. The panel considers these will be necessary since
the University’s existing capability in distance education to New Zealanders will
not necessarily position it to deliver academic programmes to international
students in other contexts. The panel affirms the University’s intention to develop
support materials for staff who develop and deliver offshore programmes, and
recommends that the University ensures that signed contracts are in place prior to
commencing delivery of offshore programmes.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
xii New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
Commendations, recommendations and affirmations
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari xiii
Commendations, recommendations and
affirmations Key: C = Commendations R = Recommendations A = Affirmations
NOTE: The words ‘the University’ in each recommendation are intended to refer to the agency within Massey
University that the University itself deems to be the one most appropriate to address and progress the
recommendation.
General
A vision for the future
C 1 p.2 The panel commends the leadership of the Vice-Chancellor for articulating a far-
reaching and ambitious vision for the University and the manner in which there has been
extensive consultation and communication.
R 1 p.3 The panel recommends that, while continuing to develop its vision for 2020, the
University reconsiders and prioritises its targets and strategies.
One University
R 2 p.5 The panel recommends that the University establishes a University-wide
information services co-ordination structure to enhance the capacity for
distributing core information, to develop an overall information services plan and
to be accountable for its implementation.
C 2 p.5 The panel commends the University for the decision by the Vice-Chancellor to develop
a national office and home for the senior leadership team.
R 3 p.5 The panel recommends that the University reconfigures the Academic Board
involving strong academic leadership and key academic personnel to provide a
major forum for serious debate and resolution of substantial academic items, and
to act as a major mechanism in driving the ‘one University’ policy; and that the
University ensures sufficient resource is available to enable engagement of all its
members.
Goals, objectives and plans
A 1 p.7 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Improvement 5) to have the revised
Planning Framework [Implementation of the University’s investment plan 2008-2010]
with target key performance indicators implemented in 2008.
Teaching and learning
Distance education and e-learning
R 4 p.12 The panel recommends that the University, in confirming the strategic importance
of distance education to the University’s mission:
▪ understands the markets and their needs through appropriate market
research,
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
xiv New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
▪ recognises the pedagogical challenges for distance learners and implements
supports and services as appropriate,
▪ recognises and embraces the changing face of distance education delivery
in view of changing technologies, and
▪ invests appropriate human and material resources to achieve international
good practice.
R 5 p.12 The panel recommends that, in support of all forms of academic programme
delivery across all campuses, the University invests in:
▪ information technology support for e-learning,
▪ pedagogical support for the use of information technology in e-learning,
and that the University monitors the impact and effectiveness of this investment to
ensure improved educational success and outcomes for all learners.
Equivalence policy
C 3 p.12 The panel commends the University on the successful implementation and management
of the equivalence policy that also takes account of regional aspects.
Library
C 4 p.14 The panel commends the University for the excellent support provided for distance
education students by Library staff on all campuses.
Information technology
R 6 p.15 The panel recommends that the University ensures Information Technology
Services is formally consulted as part of procedures related to the approval of new
academic programmes and research proposals.
Assessment and plagiarism
R 7 p.16 The panel recommends that the University implements a stand-alone policy on
plagiarism that treats plagiarism in the same way as any other form of academic
misconduct.
Student evaluation of teaching and papers
A 2 p.17 The panel affirms the University’s intentions (Improvements 7, 8 and 9) with respect
to the participation in the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement, improvements
to the Graduate Destination Survey Questionnaire, and the delivery of a teaching
evaluation system.
R 8 p.17 The panel recommends that the University gives priority to:
▪ the implementation of an improved Student Evaluation of Content,
Administration and Teaching survey instrument (SECAT),
▪ making the results of SECAT more generally available, and
▪ making known how the results of SECAT are used.
Commendations, recommendations and affirmations
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari xv
Research environment
Research capability, performance and reputation
A 3 p.19 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Strategic Priority 6) to enhance national
research capability and economic growth arising from the advancement of Massey
University’s research capability, performance and reputation.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Pasifika
Kia Maia
C 5 p.23 The panel commends the University for the Kia Maia strategy and the leadership of the
Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Māori and Pacific) with respect to capability building and
embedding the implementation of Kia Maia throughout the University.
R 9 p.23 The panel recommends that, in 2010, the University undertakes a stocktake of
progress made in the implementation of Kia Maia and the extent of uptake with the
view to celebrate success and to inform the ongoing implementation of the strategy.
Pasifika@Massey
C 6 p.24 The panel commends the University for the development of the comprehensive and
coherent Pasifika@Massey strategy and the University’s commitment to its
implementation.
R 10 p.24 The panel recommends that the University sets more specific targets across
campuses and Colleges to drive the implementation of the Pasifika@Massey
strategy.
A 4 p.24 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Improvement 15) to explore strategic
collaboration internal and external to the University as a means to further develop
and achieve the goals outlined in the Pasifika@Massey strategy.
Academic support and staff
Workload
R 11 p.25 The panel recommends that the University implements some form of on-going
University-wide monitoring of staff workload, with stronger University guidelines
which facilitate equity of workload across cognate areas, and with approved
mechanisms to allow divergences.
Professional support and development
A 5 p.26 The panel affirms the University’s intentions to align staff training and development
to the strategic priorities of the University and the needs of the Colleges (Improvement
10) and to expand research on effective teaching and learning (Improvement 11).
R 12 p.27 The panel recommends that the University strengthens the Centre for Academic
Development and e-Learning by making strategic academic staff appointments
with the appropriate research background, experience and expertise, and that
consideration be given to appointing existing staff with appropriate qualifications
and experience to academic positions.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
xvi New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
Institutional quality assurance
Reviews and planning
R 13 p.30 The panel recommends that the University develops and implements an
overarching quality assurance framework that not only includes qualification
reviews but also the systematic external reviews of key functional areas such as
Colleges, Schools, Departments and service and support departments.
R 14 p.30 The panel recommends that the University ensures there are strong and effective
links at institutional level between quality assurance processes (such as
qualification reviews) and strategic planning.
Management and administrative support
Management and communication
A 6 p.32 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Improvement 12) to review progress on
the leadership and management training package provided through the Human
Resources Section and develop and implement an action plan to deliver the
management training required by new academic and general managers, and urges the
University to give it a high priority.
R 15 p.32 The panel recommends that the University facilitates professional development and
training for all general staff, particularly in the areas of leadership and
management training.
Organisational capability and capacity
A 7 p.33 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Improvement 29) to implement agreed
capital development plans for expansion of the library facilities at the Albany and
Wellington campuses.
Stakeholder engagement and external academic collaborations and
partnerships
Commercialisation
A 8 p.36 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Improvement 26) to develop a clear
framework for commercialisation that outlines the responsibilities of the Enterprise
Team within Research Management Services and Massey Ventures, and includes an
education programme for staff about commercial potential and the assistance
available to identify and capitalise on commercial opportunities.
Internationalisation
International strategies
R 16 p.38 The panel recommends that the University arrives at a clear understanding of
internationalisation and internationalisation of the curriculum after discussion
with the University community, and develops a conceptual framework for the
implementation of internationalisation strategies.
Commendations, recommendations and affirmations
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari xvii
A 9 p.39 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Improvement 30) to develop support
materials (including policy and procedures) for staff to develop and deliver offshore
programmes in a manner that manages the risk and maximises the value to the
University and its students, and urges the highest priority to the implementation of
policy and procedures and to the training of academic staff.
R 17 p.39 The panel recommends that the University ensures that signed contracts are in
place prior to commencing delivery of offshore programmes and that each includes
a definitive clause on teachout strategies.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
xviii New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari xix
Preamble
▪ The self-assessment portfolio
In early discussions between Massey University and the New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit
[the Unit], the Unit agreed to the University’s request for the self-assessment portfolio to be structured
around the University’s strategic priorities as detailed in Investing in our future: investment plan (profile)
2008-2010 for Massey University [the Investment Plan] which was signed off by the University in
November 2007. This structuring was agreed to on the understanding that all of the topics and activities
set down in the indicative framework for Cycle 4 audits5 would be included by the University and, as set
out in the framework, associated processes would be included in the University’s self-assessment of
effectiveness, strengths and challenges. The Cycle 4 indicative framework asks questions about the
output/outcome data and other evidence used to determine strengths and to judge progress, the
mechanisms and processes used to monitor ongoing quality and provide input into continuous
improvement, and an evaluation of the relevance and effectiveness of evidence, mechanisms and
processes.
While the Audit portfolio 2008 [Portfolio] as submitted by the University followed the agreed structure, it
did not address the Cycle 4 questions and did not provide an evidence base upon which the panel could
assess its claims about quality and performance. This was of concern to the panel. The Portfolio
provided the panel with descriptions of processes and activities, supported the text with various strategic
planning documents, reports and the latest annual report, and referred the panel to its website for policies
and procedures.
The Portfolio included 32 key improvements in the areas of the University’s qualifications portfolio, e-
learning, student achievement, student evaluations, research environment, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, academic
and support staff, management and administrative support, the impact of partnerships, commercialisation,
and internationalisation. (The full list of improvements is listed as Appendix 1 to this report.) Many of
the key improvements referred to actions already underway.
The panel asked for a statement providing an update on all of the key improvements current at the time of
the site visit. This was supplied. The panel also asked for the update statement to prioritise the key
improvements and to identify those that are most significant to the future of the University. This was not
supplied, and the University’s rationale for not supplying this was that all improvements would be
actioned within the three-year period of the Investment Plan. As a consequence, the panel paid most
attention to those improvements which, in its view, are of significance to the future strategic direction of
the University, as indicated in the strategic plannning documents provided as part of the Portfolio.
Some of these key improvements appeared to the panel to address issues similar to those identified in
some of the recommendations of the 2003 Cycle 3 academic audit report. The panel asked for a statement
on those recommendations still outstanding at the time of the University’s December 2004 Cycle 3
follow-up report to the Unit. In response, a spreadsheet was provided with an update on all Cycle 4 key
improvements as at the time of the site visit, plus related recommendations in the 2003 Cycle 3 academic
audit report, related University improvement initiatives in the Cycle 3 self-assessment portfolio, related
recommendations in the 2001 Cycle 2 academic audit report, and related University improvement
initiatives in the Cycle 2 self-assessment portfolio. However, no commentary was given on progress with
the Cycle 3 recommendations from 2003.
5 See Appendix 2 for the framework for Cycle 4 academic audits
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
xx New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
▪ A period of transition
The panel was very aware that the academic audit was being conducted at a time of transition for the
University with the arrival of a new Vice-Chancellor who brings his own vision of the future, and a desire
to redefine the University’s strategic direction. In preparation for the site visit, the panel had evaluated
the Portfolio which reflected the strategic vision of the former administration. The panel had also viewed
a video presentation to staff by the incoming Vice-Chancellor, and on arrival in Palmerston North, the
draft Massey University – defining New Zealand: the road to 2020 [the Road to 2020] was awaiting the
panel. The Road to 2020 provides the new administration’s vision for the future. The juxtapositon of the
Portfolio and the Road to 2020 – which the panel could not ignore if it is to assist the University as it
moves into the future – confirmed the transitionary context in which the panel has had to carry out its site
visit and prepare this audit report.
▪ This academic audit report
The design and content of the Portfolio, and the transitional nature of the University at the time of the site
visit, presented the panel with considerable challenges. Instead of validating the University’s own
evaluation of its performance, the panel was required to seek the evidence to substantiate the University’s
own claims through four days of interviews – one day at Massey University Albany (Auckland), two-and-
a-half days at Massey University Manawatu,6 and half a day at Massey University Wellington.
The structure of this report follows that of the indicative framework for Cycle 4 academic audits. The
panel placed its primary focus on the strategic priorities presented in the University’s Investment Plan.
Although some areas in the indicative framework may lie outside the strategic priorities, topics around
academic and support staff, and management and administrative support are essential to the achievement
of those priorities, and were the subject of some of the University’s improvement initiatives. The panel
has also considered institutional quality assurance even though the University did not have any
improvement initiatives in this area.
6 Since the site visit, the Vice-Chancellor has made changes to the nomenclature of one of the campuses –
Palmerston North campus is now Manawatu campus
General
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 1
1
General
1.1 Massey University
Massey University operates through a matrix of campuses and Colleges. Research, teaching and
learning take place on three physical campuses – the Manawatu campus at the Turitea site (the
main site) and Hokowhitu site (College of Education) in Palmerston North and at the Ruawharo
site in Napier (6,9287 internal students over the three sites); at Albany on the North Shore of
Auckland (5,814 internal); and at Wellington (3,486 internal). A fourth campus – a ‘virtual’
campus – comprises distance education8 enrolments from throughout New Zealand and overseas,
with 15,971 registered to the Manawatu campus. The three physical campuses are each
administered by a Regional Chief Executive9 who is responsible for localised strategic planning,
infrastructure and co-ordination of services in support of the delivery of academic programmes.
The development, design and delivery of academic programmes is the responsibility of five
Colleges of varying sizes – the College of Business (12,961 students, internal and distance), the
College of Creative Arts (1,981), the College of Education (2,887), the College of Humanities
and Social Sciences (9,284), and the College of Sciences (6,657). Each College is headed by a
Pro Vice-Chancellor who is responsible for the strategic direction of the College, budgetary
management, and the quality of academic teaching, research and community service activities
related to the academic programmes delivered across the University.
Responsibilities for University-wide policy development as well as the co-ordination, planning
and monitoring of activities in specified areas are vested in Assistant Vice-Chancellors10
– one
for Māori and Pacific, one for Research, and one for Academic (yet to be appointed).11
There are three main modes of delivery – face-to-face instruction for internal students on campus
(approximately 48% of enrolments); distance education (approximately 47% of enrolments) and
block course teaching (approximately 5% of enrolments). Many papers are offered in all three
modes, with some at more than one campus. During any year of study, students can enrol in
papers in combinations of modes – for example, some courses as internal students and some as
distance education students. This facilitates access by students to papers that might not be
offered on the campus in the city in which they live, or papers that are offered at times that
conflict with personal commitments.
The distribution of internal enrolments varies widely from College to College and between
academic departments. For example, at College level, the College of Business, College of
7 Student headcount as at October 2008.
8 Massey University is a leader in New Zealand in distance education. Distance education is also described as
extramural teaching, and students enrolled in distance learning as extramural enrolments. 9 Since the site visit, the Vice-Chancellor has restyled Deputy Vice-Chancellors responsible for campuses as
Regional Chief Executives. 10
Deputy Vice-Chancellors at the time of the site visit. 11
At the time of the site visit, the responsibility for ‘academic’ matters lay with the then Deputy Vice-Chancellor
(Academic and Research).
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
2 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
Education and College of Humanities and Social Sciences have more distance education students
than internal students (53%, 69%, 55% respectively), while the Colleges of Creative Arts and
Sciences have more internal than distance education students (99% and 68% respectively). The
range of College offerings varies from campus to campus, as does the number of enrolments on
each campus.
Distance education is supported primarily from the Manawatu campus where about 70% of all
academic staff are to be found. Manawatu is ‘home’ to the College of Education (92% of all
College enrolments), College of Humanities and Social Sciences (73% of all College
enrolments) and the College of Sciences (76% of all College enrolments). The Albany campus is
the base for the Pro Vice-Chancellor of the College of Business and ‘home’ to 61% of this
College’s internal enrolments;12
the Wellington campus is the base for the Pro Vice-Chancellor
of the College of Creative Arts and ‘home’ to 88% of College internal enrolments.
This matrix creates a complexity of administration that is well recognised by the University. The
University has in place systems and processes to manage this complexity and diversity, while
permitting innovation, flexibility and regional difference. Nevertheless, the panel sensed from
what it read and heard during interviews that this complexity makes it difficult to develop an
integrating culture that brings together the different campuses, their histories and their cultures,
and that harnesses the resulting creative tensions that should be directed towards stimulating
innovation.
1.2 A vision for the future
A new Vice-Chancellor had formally taken up his position only a few days before the site visit
by the panel and five months after the departure of the previous incumbent. It was evident to the
panel from interviews that the University community on all campuses welcomed the interactions
with the Vice-Chancellor that had taken place in the period leading up to his installation. There
was evidence of considerable excitement across the University over the appointment of the new
Vice-Chancellor, and the accompanying opportunities for new direction that his new leadership
will provide.
Commendation
C 1 The panel commends the leadership of the Vice-Chancellor for articulating a far-
reaching and ambitious vision for the University and the manner in which there
has been extensive consultation and communication.
The Vice-Chancellor’s vision is given detailed expression in Massey University – defining New
Zealand: the road to 2020 [the Road to 2020] in which it is stated that:
By 2020 Massey will be acknowledged as New Zealand’s defining university and as a world
centre of tertiary learning.
The Road to 2020 echoes the intention expressed in the Investment Plan (see section 1.4 below)
for the University to be internationally regarded as one of the top 20 universities in the Asia-
Pacific region and first in selected disciplines; it also expresses the intention of being in the top
50 world-wide, as well as a leader in distance education. In interview with the panel, Pro Vice-
Chancellors (who are responsible for the teaching, research and service activities in the Colleges)
appeared to be content with the vision. However, Heads of Department (who administer the day-
12
In the College of Business, 52% of enrolments are in distance education and credited to the Manawatu campus.
General
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 3
to-day operations of academic units) appeared to the panel to take a more holistic view and were
more circumspect and realistic in what can, in fact, be achieved. Incremental growth and
development was seen as possible, and all agreed that continuous growth and continuous
improvement were laudable and achievable goals.
The panel came to the view that to achieve either a top 20 Asia-Pacific rating as a research
university, or be a world leader in distance education, requires considerable investment, and
given present resources, it could prove too ambitious. The panel was concerned that the
University will appear to be consistently falling short of its targets and that staff may become
disillusioned if goals are not achieved. In addition, the investment necessary to support top
quality research and research-informed teaching throughout the University may compromise
other important aspects of the University’s activities, in particular distance education.
A vision for the future is important, but it is the view of the panel that the University, with its
three campuses with their distinctive histories, physical layouts, quality of facilities, and
academic programmes, has to be more realistic about its goals. The University could do well to
strengthen the multi-faceted nature of its operations and contributions, placing emphasis on
existing research that is or can become world-class, and targeting its particular educational and
delivery strengths. The panel is of the view that the University’s vision should stem from its
history and culture of undertaking a wide range of different things; applied research is defining
of the University, as is distance education; and the University produces professional and practical
graduates. This culture should be strengthened.
Recommendation
R 1 The panel recommends that, while continuing to develop its vision for 2020, the
University reconsiders and prioritises its targets and strategies.
1.3 One University
At the time of this academic audit, the University was re-emphasising its ‘one University’ policy.
Massey University emerged as a comprehensive university on the Manawatu campus during the
1960s following over three decades as an agricultural college. During site visit interviews, the
panel saw a little of the three different campus environments and heard about different inherited
histories of the present-day three campuses in terms of research and teaching focus. In 1993, the
University developed a new satellite campus in Albany on the northern limits of greater
Auckland, offering at first a limited range of Massey University papers. In 1996, the Palmerston
North College of Education (established as the Palmerston North Teachers’ College in 1956)
merged with the University, leading to a reorganisation of teacher education and university
education into a new College of Education and requiring the bringing together of two distinct
academic traditions and cultures. In 1999, the Wellington Polytechnic merged with the
University establishing a College of Design, Fine Arts and Music within the University (now
College of Creative Arts), adding yet another cultural heritage to the University; and in 2006, the
New Zealand of Music was formally established as a joint venture with the Victoria University
of Wellington through the amalgamation of the University’s Conservatorium of Music with the
Victoria University of Wellington’s School of Music.
Massey University continues to be challenged by the task of finding ways to achieve the ‘one
University’ culture, and creative tensions arise from the diversity resulting from expansion and
mergers. This requires creative solutions to capture the positive contributions to be made from
three distinct regions and histories. Inevitably, tensions are present:
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
4 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
▪ between campuses and Colleges, where campuses seek to meet the needs of their
regional communities, while Colleges seek to satisfy the strategic directions of their
disciplines and the academic programmes they deliver on more than one campus,
▪ between the role of Regional Chief Executives who are responsible for providing the
infrastructures to support academic progammes, and the role of Pro Vice-Chancellors
who are responsible for both the academic profile of Colleges and for the delivery of
academic progammes across campuses,
▪ between the resources required to support distance education and internal learning,
▪ between central services based on the Manawatu campus and the presence of those
services on the Albany and Wellington campuses, and
▪ between the total educational experience of students on the Manawatu campus which is
comprehensive in its academic offerings, and the total educational experience of
students on the Albany and Wellington campuses with their more limited academic
offerings.
The panel became aware of a perception of the University as comprising ‘Manawatu and two
regional campuses’ with the Manawatu campus as Massey’s ‘centre’. Manifestations of this
include:
▪ the access by academic staff to (for example) staff development programmes
administered by a Manawatu-based agency and offered on other campuses whenever
practicable to that agency, which can cause problems for staff unable to attend courses
when offered and therefore are required to travel to Palmerston North;
▪ the operation of a department on more than one campus or programmes delivered by
different departments across campuses, which has the potential to create difficulties of
ensuring unity of operation.
Some people who spoke to the panel regarded some academic and administrative processes as
cumbersome and slow, while the necessity to act regionally has the potential to put at risk the
strategic approach to the University desired by the senior leadership.
The tensions associated with a multi-campus multi-College University are all keenly felt by the
University and the senior leadership. There is a recognition that the matrix structure can make it
more difficult to get the right people together to consider issues. It was acknowledged that
negotiation can take time and can cause frustration, and that ways have to be found to share the
synergies that can come from having three main regions to inform the ‘one University’. Strong
advocacy and negotiation are required, which may result in compromises on the part of
advocates when conflicting demands require resolution.
The Portfolio reported that self-assessment associated with this academic audit had indicated
issues around communication. The University’s structure and the potential and existing tensions
as discussed above create a complextity, and management of this degree of complexity requires
the University to take steps to strengthen its communication infrastructure.
General
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 5
Recommendation
R 2 The panel recommends that the University establishes a University-wide
information services co-ordination structure to enhance the capacity for
distributing core information, to develop an overall information services plan and
to be accountable for its implementation.
Nevertheless, it was apparent to the panel from interviews that people were going ahead and
doing things, and that initatives and new processes are often developed initially at the level of
Colleges and departments. This leads to the general nature of many policies thus allowing for
Colleges to place their own interpretation on them, which in itself creates the potential for
variation in students’ learning experiences.
The University is looking for ways to enhance the ‘one University’ policy, and the panel was
interested in the symbolism and immediate impact of the establishment by the new Vice-
Chancellor of a new physical location for a ‘national office’ for senior management with pan-
University responsibilties. Such a separately-situated national office provides a clear indication
that senior leadership is dedicated to the service of the whole University.
Commendation
C 2 The panel commends the University for the decision by the Vice-Chancellor to
develop a national office and home for the senior leadership team.
A more tangible mechanism for the ‘one University’ is the Academic Board. The panel was
interested to hear in interview, in particular from members of the Council and the Academic
Board itself, that the Academic Board is not working well. The role, responsibilities and
functions of the Board were not clearly understood, even by members of the Board, and there
appeared to be no formal sharing of information among Colleges of the decisions made by the
Academic Board and the Academic Committee (to which the Academic Board delegates much of
the routine business). The Academic Board and its committees should, by virtue of their primary
academic pan-University responsibilities, be the primary mechanisms to harness the positive
consequences of, and to mitigate the negative aspects of, the multi-campus multi-College
structure. The panel was also informed that members of the Academic Board not resident in
Palmerston North were not supported to travel to meetings, and therefore attend only when the
costs of travel could be covered by other forms of University business. The panel understands
teleconferencing is not yet employed in these meetings.
The panel came to the view that the Academic Board must become an effective academic voice
for the ‘one University’, and must be provided with the resources to facilitate adequate
attendance at all meetings, either in person or by video/teleconferencing. Ways should also be
found to assist the University understand the role of the Academic Board, and to communicate
the relevant resolutions of the Board to the University community.
Recommendation
R 3 The panel recommends that the University reconfigures the Academic Board
involving strong academic leadership and key academic personnel to provide a
major forum for serious debate and resolution of substantial academic items, and
to act as a major mechanism in driving the ‘one University’ policy; and that the
University ensures sufficient resource is available to enable engagement of all its
members.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
6 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
Another cross-College mechanism that came to the attention of the panel was the forum of
College Academic Directors through which information and effective practices can be shared. A
similar initiative exists for the Regional Registrars to share information and good practices
across campuses. In addition, the Federation of Massey University Students’ Association
Incorporated assists in this regard by bringing together representatives of the students’
associations on each of the three campuses together with the Extramural Students’ Society that
represents distance education students.
1.4 Goals, objectives and plans
Prior to the site visit, the panel was provided with two primary strategic documents as part of the
Portfolio submission, and with a draft of the Vice-Chancellors’ vision to 2020.
▪ Strategic positioning – the Massey way [April 2007] [the Massey Way] was reportedly
the result of more than two years of discussion throughout the University. The Massey
Way defines the University as being a:
world-class university committed to excellence in teaching, research and research
training; internationally recognised for its relevance, innovation, flexibility and
accessibility; academically focused and strategically differentiated by campus.
There are five strategic priorities in this document.
* Advancing research excellence.
* Enhancing teaching quality and academic focus.
* Increasing the quality of staff and improving staff satisfaction.
* Effective engagement with community and industry.
* Addressing budget realities and achieving financial sustainability.
▪ Investing in our future: investment plan (profile) 2008-2010 for Massey University
[November 2007] [Investment Plan] builds on the Massey Way and develops a strategic
planning document out of it, and introduces the idea of the University’s intention to be:
internationally regarded as one of the top 20 universities in the Asia-Pacific Region
and first in selected disciplines.
The Investment Plan declares:
Investing in our future will ensure Massey University continues to make the
outstanding contribution to New Zealand’s economic and social transformation
through excellence and relevance in research-led education for which it is already
known world-wide. We will deliver the key shifts and [Government] Statement of
Tertiary Education Priorities now identified for the tertiary education sector by
engaging closely with our stakeholders, being responsive to their needs, and
making a dynamic contribution to the enhancement of national goals.
The national distinctiveness of the University is described as being based on three key
factors:
General
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 7
* the unique contribution we make to New Zealand’s land-based industries based
on our strengths and leadership in agricultural, veterinary, food and life
science disciplines,
* being a national university with multi-campus character, and
* our unique contribution to life-long learning in New Zealand through our
comprehensive university-level distance education programmes.
The Investment Plan identifies nine strategic priorities which:
reflect the positioning, distinctive character and operating environment of the
University . . . [and] these priorities will enable the University to deliver the
significant outcomes sought for New Zealand and the STEP13
priorities and key
shifts for the Universities sub-sector.
The strategic priorities are worded as outcome statements. Each of the strategic
priorities is supported by a description, outcomes and key initiatives. The Investment
Plan also includes key performance indicators which include data reporting and
statements on progress in achieving the feasibility, development and implementation of
plans and strategic documents, but do not always include measures of progress directly
related to the strategic priorities as stated.
▪ A draft copy of Massey University – defining New Zealand: the road to 2020 [Road to
2020], which expresses the Vice-Chancellor’s vision and contains six high-level goals
for the University, was made available to the panel at the time of the site visit. The
Road to 2020 was still in development at the time of the site visit, and known only to
the Senior Leadership Team.
All three documents – the Massey Way, the Investment Plan, and the Road to 2020 – are high
level, all-embracing and ambitious. There was also an acceptance by the University that some
work is yet to be done to drive the alignment among planning and implementation documents
down to departmental level and through performance agreements.
The panel agrees with comments from various members of the new administration and senior
leadership team who accept that the plans need to be better aligned with the Road to 2020; that
these documents need to be focused more clearly on the University’s strengths in research and
curriculum; that they need to be more definite in terms of strategies to implement change with
some of the detail in the Investment Plan being removed and included in lower-level plans and
planning strategies; and that planning documents require key performance indicators which
provide much more meaningful measures of progress.
Affirmation
A 1 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Improvement 5) to have the revised
Planning Framework [Implementation of the University’s investment plan 2008-
2010] with target key performance indicators implemented in 2008.
The panel was unable to find much evidence in the materials supplied to it to substantiate the
claims about University performance. Therefore the panel was interested in learning from staff
of the Office of Strategy and Management (titled ‘Strategic Finance and Planning’ at the time of
13
Office of the Minister of Tertiary Education, Tertiary education strategy 2007-2012 incorporating statement of
tertiary education priorities 2008-10, Wellington, Ministry of Education, [2006].
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
8 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
the site visit) that the University is implementing a more co-ordinated and formalised approach
to institutional research into organisational capacity and institutional performance, with a new
appointment having been made to undertake University data gathering and evaluation. The
Office of Strategy and Management were of the view that it would be appropriate to undertake a
stocktake of what the University does and to build a strong institutional framework for research
into institutional performance, with better data to inform planning decisions. The panel is of the
view that future planning and audit documents would benefit greatly from such developments.
1.5 Other factors
▪ Declining enrolments
Over recent years, the University’s student enrolments have been declining significantly – a 15%
drop in total headcount 2005-2008, from 39,645 to 33,770. There has been an overall 16% drop
in distance education enrolments across the University. The panel was informed that some
departments were being amalgamated on the Manawatu campus, especially in the case of small
departments delivering papers over more than one campus and being unable to sustain
themselves with falling enrolments.
The Road to 2020 exhorts the University to aim for a 30% increase in Equivalent Full-Time
Students by 2016, but the panel was not aware of the strategies to be used to assist with this. The
panel is of the view that the University needs to prepare and evaluate detailed demographic
reports in order to determine why and where the downturn is happening and to inform strategies
to address the medium- and long-term consequences of this downturn.
▪ The Performance-Based Research Fund
The panel was interested in the number of times the Performance-Based Research Fund [PBRF]
was raised during interviews. The PBRF and the desirability of improving scores across the
University were mentioned by staff at several levels who have knowledge of pressure on
themselves and/or their colleagues. The panel was also made aware in a number of situations of
funding being available for teaching buy-out to provide staff with time to progress their research,
with the consequence that such buy-out resulted in the teaching being undertaken by teachers
who may not be active in research. The PBRF has helped to make research explicit, but the
reference to the pressure on staff arising from PBRF also highlighted the tension between
research and teaching, and between fundamental research (easily accountable under the PBRF
system) and applied research (not so easily accountable).
Just as interesting for the panel was the number of occasions the PBRF was raised during
interviews with students who sensed that it was impacting on staff time, on the availability of
staff to students, and on the time given to tasks associated with teaching. From comments made
by both staff and students, the panel was concerned that in some instances, PBRF might be
unduly overshadowing teaching.
Teaching and learning
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 9
2
Teaching and learning
2.1 Qualifications portfolio
The University Investment Plan has a strategic priority with respect to its portfolio of academic
qualifications.
University strategic priority
SP4 The Academic portfolio of qualifications
Enhanced contribution to economic transformation and social development through
a focussed and differentiated academic portfolio.
This strategic priority is described in the Investment Plan as providing an academic portfolio
which is strategically positioned in line with the teaching and research strategies of each of its
Colleges, delivering ‘nationally relevant and internationally regarded academic programmes’
through its three campuses and through distance education. Key initiatives include, on the one
hand, rationalising academic programme offerings, building on recognised research strengths,
and ensuring relevance of provision; and on the other hand, introducing a wider range of
programmes in under-serviced regions, and innovative and practical postgraduate up-skilling
programmes particularly in agri-foods and high-tech industries. Expanding liaison and
mentoring programmes with schools is also on the agenda. Key performance indicators are
around the key initiatives, but leave unstated how the University will measure its ‘enhanced
contribution to economic transformation and social development’.
The Portfolio prepared for this academic audit supports the arguments made in the Investment
Plan and includes University improvements around professional accreditation of professionally-
oriented qualifications (Improvement 17); around processes to ensure the alignment of new
papers and programmes with the University’s strategic goals (Improvement 18) and with local
requirements and the overall academic portfolio of the University (Improvement 19); and around
the need for better information about the relevance and position of the University’s programmes
in relation to other providers and the needs of regional and international communities of interest
(Improvement 20). The first of these is already part of the University’s practice, while the other
three are to be expected of a University wishing to improve its strategic positioning.
During the site visit, the panel was reminded that the University recognises the need to
rationalise its papers, and to build on its strengths. Some staff supported rationalisation because
of their perception that the University was offering too many papers, in part to meet specific
needs of students in order to attract enrolments in such areas. Rationalisation should strengthen
the quality of academic offerings.
The panel also heard of the pressures placed on resources by the desire to improve Performance-
Based Research Fund scores, which led the panel to the view that a review of the number of
papers offered should be accompanied by a review of time and staff workloads to meet the
strategic priority.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
10 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
2.2 Distance education and e-learning
One of the historic defining features of the University has been distance education, and during
the site visit, the panel was told repeatedly of the importance of distance learning to the
University. The application of e-learning technologies has been a relatively recent development.
The Portfolio and discussions at interviews pointed to the need to invest in distance education if
the University is to maintain its standing. Not surprisingly, therefore, the University has two
strategic priorities in its Investment Plan in this area – one on distance education, the other on e-
learning; in the Portfolio discussion, the two priorities are brought together.
University strategic priority
SP2 Distance education
Improved educational success for learners from the continuous improvement of
Massey’s university-level distance education provision.
Distance education is described in the Investment Plan as a core and distinctive feature of the
University, and that the strategy aims to enhance distance education ‘through redevelopment
goals with related initiatives’ so that the University can ‘cement’ its position as the pre-eminent
provider of university-level distance learning nationally and internationally. Key initiatives
include building on the University’s existing strengths, exploring opportunities to provide a
wider range of programmes (including postgraduate study) through distance learning, expanding
the level of learning support and building staff capacity for e-learning staff and effective
pedagogy, looking to offshore distance delivery, and investing in infrastructure including
information technology, library and learning resources in order to exploit the potential of e-
learning to support learners. Key performance indicators are around completion and retention
rates, student satisfaction, numbers of qualifications offered to international students overseas via
distance learning, provision for under-serviced regions and populations, and infrastructure.
University strategic priority
SP3 e-Learning
Improved educational outcomes for learners from the strengthening of Massey
University’s e-learning capacity.
The Investment Plan reports that the University is finalising a strategy for e-learning that will
integrate and strengthen e-learning within the wider learning and teaching environment. Two of
the key initiatives reflect two of those for distance education – investment in infrastructure and
staff capacity – while others require the redesign of papers based on effective pedagogies to
support e-learning, development of a research programme to evaluate the impact of information
and communication technologies on learners, and the integrated use of e-learning in academic
programmes to enhance the development of on-line learning communities amongst all learners.
Key performance indicators are around the proportion of papers that have an e-learning
component, student satisfaction, infrastructure investment and the proposed research programme.
However, there appear to be no indicators in the Investment Plan around improved education
outcomes for learners.
The panel was pleased to see the coupling of distance education and e-learning in the Portfolio.
In today’s educational environment, distance education in particular, and all teaching and
learning more generally, require underpinning by robust e-learning technologies and integrated
use of e-learning in pedagogy. The panel noted that the Portfolio acknowledges this point and
Teaching and learning
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 11
indicates that one of the challenges is ensuring all academic staff are supported in their attempts
to design and deliver distance learning materials based on effective pedagogies.
However, while extending the use of e-learning is widely accepted by staff – especially those in
departments with a strong focus on distance education – the aspirations for the use of e-learning
are not yet matched with the appropriate support infrastructure. The Portfolio reports findings
from the University’s own self-assessment that there was a lack of technical and pedagogical
assistance available to academic staff and departments for the development and implementation
of e-learning in papers and programmes. Some staff interviewed were of the opinion that e-
learning technology had missed out on major investment, and that staff required incentives to
devote their time to taking advantage of the support available.
During the site visit, the findings and improvement initiatives reported in the Portfolio were
echoed in interviews with members of Council and academic staff at all levels. There was a
recognition that the University had lost momentum in distance education and e-learning; and that
both distance education and e-learning require new investment in infrastructure and support for
staff to retain quality delivery. The Director of Distance Education reported to the panel on the
progress on programme redesign and in gaining staff co-operation to effect change through
programme redesign, in order to bring distance education up-to-date.
In the opinion of some staff, distance education had lost ground because it has been so heavily
paper-based; for other staff, there were concerns that broadband internet coverage was not
accessible nationwide and, therefore, paper-based materials were still required. Staff interviewed
recognised that the use of on-line for the presentation of materials only was not e-learning, and
that e-learning well used is a vehicle to recreate and influence student learning patterns.
Given that one of the recognised distinctive features of the University is distance learning, the
panel noted that the University improvement reported in the Portfolio in this area is very general
and not yet well defined – namely, the implementation of agreed redevelopment goals for e-
learning (Improvement 16). The Portfolio reports that ‘a set of redevelopment action points’ was
under consideration at the time of the submission of the Portfolio, including the evaluation and
selection of a learning management system. In interviews with staff, the panel was told about the
proposed introduction of Moodle [Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment] as
the platform to replace WebCT as the University’s learning management system. The business
case for Moodle indicates that the strategic priority is ‘to transform Massey’s traditional
correspondence model distance education to a more engaging and flexible form of learning
which routinely enables students to engage with a new digital media’.
The panel was also told that the University needed to adapt to the changing nature of distance
education, and the delivery of education more generally, leading to blended education that
integrates the variety of modes of delivery. While the panel encourages this development, it is of
the view that in assisting the University to retain its reputation for delivering quality student
learning across a variety of delivery modes, the University must invest in human and technical
resources. It must also increase teaching capabilities in e-learning by providing adequate support
to assist academic staff apply e-learning technologies within pedagogical frameworks
appropriate to their disciplines.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
12 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
Recommendation
R 4 The panel recommends that the University, in confirming the strategic importance
of distance education to the University’s mission:
▪ understands the markets and their needs through appropriate market
research,
▪ recognises the pedagogical challenges for distance learners and
implements supports and services as appropriate,
▪ recognises and embraces the changing face of distance education delivery
in view of changing technologies, and
▪ invests appropriate human and material resources to achieve international
good practice.
Recommendation
R 5 The panel recommends that, in support of all forms of academic programme
delivery across all campuses, the University invests in:
▪ information technology support for e-learning,
▪ pedagogical support for the use of information technology in e-learning,
and that the University monitors the impact and effectiveness of this investment to
ensure improved educational success and outcomes for all learners.
2.3 Equivalence policy
The University is conscious of the distinctive characteristics and learning environment of each
campus, and in the academic area it operates a policy of equivalence of academic programmes
irrespective of campus or mode of delivery. The panel tested opinions on the effectiveness of
the implementation of the policy and was told of ways departments ensure good communication.
While delivery might differ, assessment is closely monitored and, in some disciplines, is the
same on all campuses. Staff stressed that the equivalence policy requires a ‘relationship of
equals’. The panel was told that there can be tensions between the tradition of academics having
freedom in teaching and assessment and the need for consistent standards across campuses, and
therefore good communication and careful monitoring of learning outcomes become important to
the implementation of the equivalence policy.
Overall, there is general satisfaction with the way the policy is working. The policy facilitates
student transfer between campuses. Staff pointed out to the panel that having different lecturers
on campuses was like having a change of lecturer from one year to the next on a one-campus
university – the same learning objectives and learning outcomes are expected from year to year
for the same paper. Innovation presents a challenge since it requires negotiation with colleagues
on other campuses. The panel heard comments that with the intention to offer papers offshore,
the application of the equivalence policy to papers offered in both New Zealand and offshore
must be given careful consideration.
Commendation
C 3 The panel commends the University on the successful implementation and
management of the equivalence policy that also takes account of regional aspects.
Teaching and learning
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 13
2.4 Student support
The panel heard that the agencies that provide student advice are effective in what they do. The
University considers it necessary to provide good academic advice to students as quickly as
possible. But not all students are required to receive academic advice at enrolment. Internal
students – who realise they need advice – are possibly in a better position to seek advice than are
distance education students.
This is a particular issue for Massey University with its large proportions of distance learners –
47% of all students, 63% of Māori students, 55% of Pasifika students – and the lack of advice for
students can result in enrolments that are academically undesirable or unacceptable. The panel
heard of a recent initiative involving telephone consultations with new distance learners within
six weeks of their enrolment which provides a system for early intervention and referral for
assistance if required.
Once in the University, Student Services attempts to consider student life holistically by
providing services and support that cover all aspects – such as student learning centres (including
support for students from targeted groups), student information centres, international student
support, sport and recreation, health and counselling, childcare, disability services,
accommodation and career advice. The delivery of student support services is devolved to
campuses so that the distinctive nature and needs of each campus can be recognised and catered
for. Regional Registrars co-ordinate and consult across the University. The University
acknowledges the perception of unevenness in student support across campuses and the
perception that Manawatu – which has the largest internal student enrolment and the most
comprehensive offering of papers – has the best facilities. Resources have to be allocated in
terms of priorities for each campus, recognising that budgets limit travel and exchange of
personnel.
There is no systematic University mechanism for picking up low performing students, but there
are initiatives around the University such as monitoring for non-submission of assignments.
In interviews, students reported general satisfaction with student support services. Student
orientation, help lines, disabilities support and the student learning centre were given particular
mention. The unevenness of support across campuses was raised, with an appreciation that the
University recognised this and that signs of gradual improvement were evident.
There are several students’ associations throughout the University – a general association on
each campus, a Māori association on each campus, and one Extramural Students Society for
distance education students. The panel was assured that communication among the associations
is good, and all associations are brought together through representatives on the Federation of
Massey University Students’ Associations Incorporated. Association representatives reported to
the panel that students’ associations sometimes find themselves filling the gaps, particularly
supplying information about the University and university study to students who call on their
services, dealing with mental health issues and administering hardship grants.
Distance education students do not have the same opportunities as internal students to develop a
sense of collegiality. They may be part of on-line study groups, and the panel was told that some
papers may use videoconferencing. Therefore their students’ association – the Extramural
Students’ Society – is an important source of student support. The panel was most impressed by
the unqualified praise given the Society by all distance education students interviewed.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
14 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
2.5 International students
The panel noted that in mid 2008, the New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit conducted
an audit of compliance against the Code of practice for the pastoral care of international
students in the areas of student support, monitoring attendance to ensure student welfare, and
accommodation provisions. That audit found that the University was fulfilling its
responsibilities to international students more than adequately. The University provides high
quality printed and website materials and an easily navigated website. The audit also noted the
careful monitoring of student welfare by means of the student administration database, the
Albany campus initiative of a Retention Co-ordinator who supports students at academic risk,
and the implementation of a special checklist devised for use in times of critical incidents.
The University has an International Office based on the Manawatu campus, which is responsible
for policy, recruitment, admission and compliance with the Code of practice. All three campuses
have international student support centres, which provide the pastoral care to students in
conjunction with the campus Student Services. The key aim is for staff on the three campuses to
work as a cohesive unit in their services for international students. New ideas for pastoral
support are often trialled on one campus and then used, with appropriate modifications, on the
other two campuses.
Staff are in touch with students from the time that the offer of a place is made, with a significant
number of contacts being made in relation to information, assistance and reminders by the time
the students arrive in the country. The Manawatu campus scored highly in the 2007 International
Student Barometer survey – an international system for surveying international students.
2.6 Library
The Portfolio reported that the Library continues to provide excellent services to staff and
students. This was echoed to the panel in interviews during the site visit, with examples of
supportive service by Library staff and special praise for service provided to distance education
students. New academic programme developments require a Library report on resources, and
this requirement assists the Library to anticipate resources required and have them available to
the greatest extent possible before new programmes are delivered. The intra-library or inter-site
service which provides a facility for overnight transfer between campuses was described as
‘brilliant’ and ‘wonderful’.
Commendation
C 4 The panel commends the University for the excellent support provided for distance
education students by Library staff on all campuses.
The University is well aware of the uneven standard of Library buildings, and students
interviewed commented on the uneven provision of the range of services at help desks –
Manawatu campus, which has the largest Library on the largest campus, appears to be best
provided – spaces for study, group work and discussion areas. Students reported that most
students do not stay on campus, especially with the ability to work on-line. The Library was
being expanded in Albany at the time of the site visit. There are plans to attend to the Library at
the Wellington campus and a new information commons was opened there recently.
Teaching and learning
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 15
2.7 Information technology
Information Technology Services provides a range of information technology services to staff
and students covering the areas of teaching, research and administration. Information
Technology Services has regional teams on all campuses, and the national team at Manawatu has
staff with special expertise travelling to other campuses as required. The panel was told that
with separate budgets for campuses, information technology is campus-driven, which can cause
tensions alongside the University information technology strategy. The aim is for all campuses
of the University to be equipped with the same high-quality teaching facilities and information
technology support.
The panel was concerned to learn that Information Technology Services does not need to be
consulted as part of the process related to the development and approval of new academic
programmes. It appears that Information Technology Services is not represented, nor in
attendance, at the Academic Board, and therefore it is the intention of Information Technology
Services to set up advisory boards so that it can become aware of projected needs to service
planned academic developments. It was pointed out by the staff of the College of Creative Arts,
for example, that the special information technology needs of creative areas appear not to be as
well understood as they should be by the Information Technology Services, and that there
needed to be more awareness of specialist needs generally.
The panel is of the view that Information Technology Services should have input into areas for
new academic programmes and research proposals.
Recommendation
R 6 The panel recommends that the University ensures Information Technology
Services is formally consulted as part of procedures related to the approval of new
academic programmes and research proposals.
2.8 Assessment and plagiarism
The Portfolio reports on the development of the assessment policy and procedures approved by
the Academic Board in mid-2008. At the time of the site visit it was too soon to test the
implementation of the policy, although the panel noted that students interviewed reported that
feedback on assessment was variable – from extensive commentaries, to nothing more than the
grade or mark.
What was also of interest to the panel was the issue, raised by academic staff, of no increase in
penalties for repeat plagiarism offences, unlike the situation in other universities known to panel
members. Academic staff recognised that students have to be educated about referencing,
plagiarism and the use of other people’s ideas, and that a first offence can often arise through
ignorance or lack of attention given in class to educating the student on good academic practice.
Many staff in the University use a worldwide on-line plagiarism detection programme, and
means of identifying plagiarism are operated at departmental level. Assessments not
administered centrally (such as in-term assessment and tests) are the responsibility of the
appropriate Pro Vice-Chancellors. Centrally-administered papers and thesis examinations are
the responsibility of the Assistant Vice-Chancellor. Academic staff found it frustrating that they
were not able to escalate penalties with repeat offenders. The panel was of the view that not
having a central register of repeat offenders or having increases in penalties for second and third
offending does not conform to international good practice.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
16 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
Recommendation
R 7 The panel recommends that the University implements a stand-alone policy on
plagiarism that treats plagiarism in the same way as any other form of academic
misconduct.
2.9 Student achievement
The Portfolio reports that a number of advances have been made to the University’s capability to
monitor student achievement and success, with the generation of reports on aspects such as
retention, completion, pass rates and grade distributions. Such information is also used in
qualification reviews. The panel was pleased to note that such data are being made available and
noted the intention to review the definitions underpinning the generation of the University’s
retention, completion and progression reports and redevelop the reports so they can be used for
accountability and improvement purposes (Improvement 6). The Portfolio also reports that a
number of departments and Colleges have specific initiatives to examine and improve student
achievement and retention.
2.10 Student evaluation of teaching and papers
The University regards the systematic use of student surveys as providing an opportunity for
regular and structured feedback on University systems and processes. The panel is of the view
that besides providing feedback on systems and processes, such surveys should be intended to
gain feedback on the quality of academic programme delivery which provides information that is
then used in enhancement initiatives. The Portfolio describes four chief surveys, and reports that
the capacity to conduct, analyse and distribute the results of the surveys has been limited. There
has been a drive to optimise their administration; the panel urges that the focus be on optimising
the use of the information they reveal. The ‘flagship’ survey instrument – Student Evaluation of
Content, Administration and Teaching (SECAT) – was reviewed in 2005, but the
recommendations arising from the review have not yet been progressed.
Students reported that while the students’ associations might be privy to the survey results,
students at large do not receive feedback on the results nor on any changes that might have
occurred as a result of the surveys. Student opinion on the surveys themselves was that the
evaluation questions were too general and were not the questions that students believe should be
asked. From interviews with staff and students, the panel understood that the approach to using
SECAT surveys and the results they provide varied among Colleges and departments.
Generally, students were dismissive of whether the information gained from surveys was used to
rectify deficiencies and enhance academic programmes, and the Extramural Students’
Association was administering its own evaluation, Rate it. Information gathered was evaluated
and reported back to students through the Association’s publications and the students
interviewed reported that they knew of academic staff who had referred to the Rate it results.
Students’ associations were also of the view that they had evidence that evaluations of the survey
results had resulted in changes to the delivery of papers.
Besides the review of SECAT, the University is intent on working to improve student
satisfaction and engagement surveys. The University intends to continue to participate in
discussions regarding the Australian Council for Educational Research Australasian Survey of
Student Engagement and to explore the continued use of the survey (Improvement 7), to
implement agreed revisions to the Graduate Destination Survey Questionnaire and methodology
Teaching and learning
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 17
in 2009 to include the Graduate Surveys of Research and Course Experience (Improvement 8),
and to review, update, and implement the recommendations of the Teaching Evaluation Working
Party [2005] to deliver a teaching evaluation system based upon effective practices
(Improvement 9). The panel urges the University to involve students and/or their representatives
in these initiatives.
Affirmation
A 2 The panel affirms the University’s intentions (Improvements 7, 8 and 9) with
respect to the participation in the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement,
improvements to the Graduate Destination Survey Questionnaire, and the delivery
of a teaching evaluation system.
Recommendation
R 8 The panel recommends that the University gives priority to:
▪ the implementation of an improved Student Evaluation of Content,
Administration and Teaching survey instrument (SECAT),
▪ making the results of SECAT more generally available, and
▪ making known how the results of SECAT are used.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
18 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
3
Research environment
3.1 Research capability, performance and reputation
The University Investment Plan has a strategic priority with respect to research capability,
performance and reputation.
University strategic priority
SP6 Research capability, performance and reputation
Enhanced national research capability and economic growth from the advancement
of Massey University’s research capability, performance and reputation.
The Investment Plan describes the University’s research capability strategy as being underpinned
by three work streams – human resources, College-based research management planning, and
internal research funding support. The University is also committed to economic benefit
realisation, innovation and knowledge transfer. Key initiatives include research and research
training standards, recruitment and development of world-class academic staff, developing
collaborative initiatives with national and international partners, updating and implementing
College research plans, building Māori and Pasifika research capability and collaborations,
commercialisation of intellectual property, expanding private sector research and development
connections, providing specialist research equipment and infrastructural support and facilities,
improving intellectual property capture, and establishing and monitoring key performance
indicators for intellectual property development. Key performance indicators are around
research income, research degree completions, research publications, and the implementation of
key initiatives, but leave unstated how the University will measure its contribution to ‘enhanced
national research capability and economic growth’.
The Portfolio reports that the Office of the Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Research)14
works closely
with the Pro Vice-Chancellors and relevant personnel in other units to ensure policies and
procedures are consistent and appropriate. Rewards for completed specified research outputs
and a variety of other supports are devolved to Colleges, which suggests that the effective
implementation of policies and procedures and the monitoring of research standards are
delegated to the Colleges.
Staff interviewed by the panel recognised the support of the University for research and the
development, by the former administration, of a culture of appreciation of achievements in
research. There was a perception that there had been significant achievement in research in a
number of areas and evidence included institutional, national and international research and
creative awards and prizes, and the ability to obtain funding streams for research through
external research grants. There was support for the University building on its areas of strength
while supporting research and creative work across the Colleges. Some noted that the
Performance-Based Research Fund had guided departments in how to achieve their own strategic
14
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Research) at the time of the site visit.
Research environment
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 19
goals. Responsibility for research improvement lies within the Colleges, and while there was
some scepticism about the vision to be in the top 20 research universities in the Asia-Pacific
region, there was a belief that research output and quality will continue to improve over time
across the University.
Affirmation
A 3 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Strategic Priority 6) to enhance
national research capability and economic growth arising from the advancement of
Massey University’s research capability, performance and reputation.
Besides funding resources, time available for research was seen as the critical element. While
there was an appreciation of opportunities to buy out teaching time to divert to research, concern
was also expressed that this may weaken the research-teaching link.
The Portfolio contained two improvements in the research area. The first is the development
(already underway) of a research management strategy addressing the implementation of the
Research Information Management System, the co-ordination and communication of services for
research support, training of staff and managers in the use of the Research Information
Management System and additional initiatives to support College research improvement plans
(Improvement 24). The second is the planned use of the Research Information Management
System in conjunction with information from Human Resources, and the Content Management
System, to develop and publish an on-line expertise database (Improvement 25). The panel
regards these as sensible developments in support of the strategic priority, and if research
capability and performance are to be enhanced. However, these developments do not address
the measures of the quality of performance (outside of numerical data related to publications and
completions covered by the Performance-Based Research Fund exercise), nor the measure of the
University’s contribution to ‘enhanced national research capability and economic growth’.
3.2 Research students
In June 2007, the New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit reported to the University on a
monitoring exercise of University admission standards and supervision of international PhD
students carried out by the Unit for the Ministry of Education. This exercise found that the
University had detailed processes in all aspects of admission and supervision which were applied
to all students, domestic as well as international. From an examination of written
documentation, the conclusion was that the University had a robust admissions process requiring
sign off that supervisors are of good national and international standard and have appropriate
research records and experience and training in supervision. The assessment of the applicants’
qualifications, literacy and ability to carry out the research projects is also required. From the
examination of files and discussions with senior personnel with institutional responsibilities for
the administration of admissions and for the oversight of supervision and support for PhD
candidates, the conclusion was reached that the processes were being followed in practice, and
that the policies and regulations were being kept under review to ensure that they reflect good
practice. The University was also monitoring the quality of supervision through the central
review of issues arising from progress reports.
During the site visit associated with this academic audit, the panel was able to confirm the
generally strong support for research students, the training of supervisors, the provision of
postgraduate handbooks, and the importance and effectiveness of progress reports for monitoring
the quality of supervision.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
20 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
The Graduate Research School administers doctoral programmes only, as other postgraduate
research programmes are administered by the Colleges. The School was of the view that were it
to be responsible for the administration of all research degrees, it could support all research
students and play an enhanced co-ordinating role across all research academic programmes.
Thought had been given to a University-wide supervisors’ register; at present, one College had
developed one, and the Graduate Research School was monitoring the initiative with interest.
A question exercising the Graduate Research School is how better to assist and support doctoral
students who live and work off-campus. The possibility of negotiating with campuses or
Colleges for on-campus spaces for such students was being considered. Students working off-
campus have good on-line access to materials, but do not have access to a ‘postgraduate culture’
as do those on campus.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Pasifika
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 21
4
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Pasifika
4.1 Māori and Pasifika education
The University Investment Plan has a strategic priority with respect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and
Pasifika education.
University strategic priority
SP1 Māori and Pasifika
Enhanced academic outcomes for Māori and Pasifika from the implementation of
Massey University’s Māori and Pasifika strategies.
The Investment Plan claims that a strong focus on Māori and Pasifika development is one of the
University’s distinctive characteristics, and that the implementation of its strategies in these areas
will make the University the ‘pre-eminent contributor’ to Māori and Pasifika professional
development and economic growth. There are two primary documents associated with this.
▪ Kia Maia: key initiatives for a Māori academic investment agenda at Massey University
(August 2007) [Kia Maia] is designed to align the University’s capabilities with full
Māori participation in Te Ao Māori (the Māori world) and in a global knowledge-based
society and economy and to contribute to Māori capacity building.
▪ Implementation of the Pasifika@Massey strategy: en route to cultural democracy (July
2007) [Pasifika@Massey] will be focused on academic achievement, professional
development, research opportunities, cultural diversity and collaborative partnerships.
Key initiatives associated with the strategic priority include the implementation of Kia Maia and
Pasifika@Massey, and engaging with wānanga to develop effective arrangements to expand
student opportunities through flexible and co-ordinated learning pathways. Key performance
indicators are around completion rates for undergraduate, postgraduate and research students,
and the successful implementation of, and extension to, Kia Maia and Pasifika@Massey
respectively. There are no specific measures of ‘academic outcomes’ beyond completion rates,
but if progress on the strategies is to be measured, data will be required on student enrolments,
staff numbers, student retention, grade profiles, Māori and Pasifika content in papers, research
projects completed, research degree completions and employment upon graduation.
The Portfolio recounts the history of the development of both strategies. It also signals that the
Priorities for Focus Funding from the Tertiary Education Commission will be targeted toward
more systematic course advice for first-year students, the development of learning communities
and postgraduate forums, the establishment of a Centre for Māori Professional Advancement and
the formation of research consortia around whanau and land and environmental management.
Kaitautoko positions for Māori student learning support, and Māori and Pasifika liaison staff
working from the National Student Relations Unit and within student services, are also noted.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
22 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
The Portfolio has two improvements arising from the self-assessment, supporting the strategic
priority with respect to Kia Maia (Improvement 14) and exploring strategic collaborations with
respect to the further development of Pasifika@Massey (Improvement 15).
4.2 Kia Maia
The panel was of the view that Kia Maia provides a strong framework for progress, being
informed by Government policy for Māori, the Tertiary education strategy 2007-2012 and
statement of tertiary education priorities 2008-2010, University policies and priorities, Māori
aspirations and various reports relating to Māori academic performance at the University and in
tertiary education more generally. Māori internal student enrolments are around 250 in each of
Albany and Wellington, 620 at Manawatu, and nearly 1,900 (63%) in distance education (total:
around 3,020). The Kia Maia is an excellent model for implementing strategic priorities, with its
unifying vision and its clear strategic framework, driven by excellent and influential leadership
with support from the wider University through appropriate resourcing.
Kia Maia is being translated at the operational level in a range of different ways. Key
appointments are being made in each campus consistent with regional needs, and in most
Colleges to direct and drive the implementation of the strategy in the delivery of academic
programmes, and thereby embed the strategy throughout the University. Champions in all
Colleges are provided with resources, and staff at all levels interviewed were aware and
supportive of the effort being put into the implementation of the strategy.
The panel was told of the aim to shift from improving access for Māori students to improving the
outcomes for Māori students. Particular examples of initiatives being implemented included a
Health programme for extramural Māori students which keeps in personal touch with students
weekly, an effective engagement of Māori youth through scholarships, and the work being done
with extramural doctoral students in Māori studies. Data were reported to the panel which
indicated positive improvement in the quality of grades, in retention and in successful and timely
completion.
In interviews with a range of groups during the site visit, the panel was told of the commitment
by everyone to playing their roles in progressing this strategy. The approach to implementation
varies according to the student populations in Colleges and departments, but is on the way
towards becoming fully embedded.
Māori students interviewed were involved in mentoring fellow students and they considered this
to be effective; they regretted that not many students were using the service. Māori are
collective in the way they work and students were grateful for the availability of Māori work
spaces, College-based Māori support personnel, Māori students’ associations on all campuses,
and other support networks. Māori students know where mainstream support services are, but
tend to gravitate to Māori support groups.
For the panel, the design of the strategy, the clear leadership, and the investment of resource into
its implementation indicate what can be done in this multi-campus multi-College University.
This experience, if successful, could provide a good practice example for other University-wide
developments. It was made clear to the panel that there is institutional buy-in, and this buy-in
needs to be maintained. The panel hopes the University is actively considering a succession plan
to ensure that strong and effective leadership is maintained when the present Assistant Vice-
Chancellor (Māori and Pacific) seeks to vacate the position. The panel is of the view that strong
leadership must be maintained if the successful implementation of the strategy is to continue.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Pasifika
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 23
Commendation
C 5 The panel commends the University for the Kia Maia strategy and the leadership
of the Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Māori and Pacific) with respect to capability
building and embedding the implementation of Kia Maia throughout the
University.
Recommendation
R 9 The panel recommends that, in 2010, the University undertakes a stocktake of
progress made in the implementation of Kia Maia and the extent of uptake with
the view to celebrate success and to inform the ongoing implementation of the
strategy.
4.3 Pasifika@Massey
Pasifika@Massey marks a beginning, and implementation has just begun. First developed in
Albany, the strategy has been accepted on all campuses of the University. The panel was
impressed with the vision and commitment of the Acting Director Pasifika (who reports to the
Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Māori and Pacific)) who confirmed the Portfolio’s account that the
initial focus is on the recruitment of Pasifika staff and students and on building research and
academic capacity to support Pasifika endeavours within and across the campuses. There is a
Pacific Island Advisor on each campus. Fale Pasifika have been established at each campus; the
Albany campus has a Pacific Peoples’ Consultancy Group and has been holding Pasifika
graduation ceremonies since 2003; the Wellington campus has a Pasifika Learning Advisor.
Reports on the academic achievement of Pasifika students are generated in the Office of the
Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Māori and Pacific) and examined annually.
Pasifika internal student enrolments are around 120 in Albany, 150 at Manawatu, 100 in
Wellington, and nearly 450 (55%) in distance education (total: nearly 820). The panel was
impressed by the positive attitude towards the University by the Pasifika students interviewed.
The manageable size, and access to, the Albany campus was appreciated. The Pasifika
initiatives in schools in Auckland were praised by mentors being involved in bringing students
from school on to the campus. This scheme is successful in raising awareness of university
education as a possibility for Pasifika students, and it deserves ongoing support.
Pasifika students told the panel that face-to-face support is important for them, and that such
support is necessary for extramural students as well. The Fale Pasifika on the Manawatu campus
provided a home away from home for students. Plans included the provision of at least one
Pasifika support person in each College.
The students also reported that a mentoring programme has just been established, and for those
who use the service, the mentors are perceived to be ‘safe’ people to approach for help. There is
some training for mentors, but more mentors and leaders of study groups are required. It would
appear that the availability of mentoring programmes varies from College to College. The panel
understood that students would appreciate it being possible for the mentoring programme to be
available in all Colleges.
The Portfolio acknowledged that one of the key challenges is recruiting and retaining qualified
staff in the light of the demand for personnel from industry, Government and other providers in
the tertiary education sector. In addition, there needs to be more engagement with Pasifika and
other communities.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
24 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
Commendation
C 6 The panel commends the University for the development of the comprehensive and
coherent Pasifika@Massey strategy and the University’s commitment to its
implementation.
Recommendation
R 10 The panel recommends that the University sets more specific targets across
campuses and Colleges to drive the implementation of the Pasifika@Massey
strategy.
Affirmation
A 4 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Improvement 15) to explore strategic
collaboration internal and external to the University as a means to further develop
and achieve the goals outlined in the Pasifika@Massey strategy.
Academic and support staff
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 25
5
Academic and support staff
5.1 Human resources
The communication of University-wide human resources policy to departments and Colleges is
through College Human Resource Advisors who assist in ensuring consistency in College-level
policies and their alignment with University principles and policies. Advisors keep in regular
contact with each other through teleconferencing. Staff concerns are considered by Heads of
Department and unit managers, and may be referred to Pro Vice-Chancellors if necessary. The
University has a trained mediation group comprising personnel outside Human Resources.
5.2 Workload
The University has a workload policy which provides principles for the development of
workload templates at departmental level. The panel appreciates that there are different
requirements for different discipline areas, but from interviews during the site visit, the panel
became concerned that the policy is left up to departments to interpret. The University’s
monitoring appears to amount to little more than ensuring that each department has a policy,
regardless of its nature.
Heads of Department interviewed were endeavouring to make the process transparent, and the
panel supports a process of negotiating workloads during the annual Personal Review of
Performance of staff. Staff appreciated the dilemma for Heads of Department, but it appeared to
the panel that the manner in which allocation of workloads was made across departments was not
always transparent to staff. Applied programmes can make demands that are not necessarily
recognised, and supervision loads can be difficult to co-ordinate. Relatively larger numbers of
papers with small enrolments can also impact on teaching workloads, and the panel is aware that
rationalisation of paper offerings is sometimes undertaken to lessen this impact.
The panel came to the view that some form of ongoing University-wide monitoring would be
useful.
Recommendation
R 11 The panel recommends that the University implements some form of on-going
University-wide monitoring of staff workload, with stronger University guidelines
which facilitate equity of workload across cognate areas, and with approved
mechanisms to allow divergences.
5.3 Professional support and development
The Portfolio reports that the responsibility for the delivery of staff development initiatives is
currently split between the Human Resources Section (leadership and management training) and
the Centre for Academic Development and e-Learning (academic and general staff
development). The self-assessment associated with this academic audit revealed that neither unit
was delivering the programmes expected and required by staff.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
26 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
The Centre for Academic Development and e-Learning is dedicated to the improvement of
learning and teaching by conducting staff induction courses, undertaking needs analyses and
training for staff, and advising on training and development policies and strategies to enable the
University to meet its obligations and objectives. The Centre facilitates training and
development in the areas of teaching and learning face-to-face, on-line or by distance delivery; it
also undertakes research into teaching and learning, and is involved in enhancing the personal
skills of staff in management and organisational development. One-to-one and group
consultations are available in these areas in support of ongoing staff development, and the Centre
would like to do more to work with groups (such as departmental groups and discipline-oriented
groups) to supplement generic courses. The Centre also organises Vice-Chancellor’s symposia,
general staff training and general staff conferences, assists with teaching excellence awards and a
fund to support innovative teaching, and co-ordinates teaching evaluations.
The panel was assured in interview that the Centre works closely with Information Technology
Services as the provider of the information technology for the University, so that the Centre can
adequately fulfil its activities to support staff in the effective pedagogical use of such technology.
The Centre admitted to difficulties in measuring how well it is fulfilling its roles apart from
reports of satisfaction from those who use the Centre’s services. Some academic staff
interviewed by the panel considered the courses to be relevant and useful, but expressed
concerns about access. Courses are easier to access by staff on the Manawatu campus than on
other campuses where staff have to fit around Centre visits, or find ways of funding visits to
Manawatu. The Centre is well aware of this, and it would like to provide equitable services
across all campuses. Present resource levels do not make it possible to increase the presence of
the Centre on the Albany and Wellington campuses at present. The contacts that are on those
campuses are the front line of support, and to the extent possible, further staff are sent there from
Manawatu if greater support is needed.
It is intended that staff training and development should be more strategic in the Centre’s
activities and the academic audit Portfolio indicated that there will be a review of the purpose
and function of the Centre to ensure that training and development initiatives are strongly aligned
with the strategic priorities of the University and the needs of the Colleges (Improvement 10). It
is also intended to ensure that opportunities for expanding research on effective teaching and
learning are explored fully and within the context of external funds that may be available,
internal research clusters within the Colleges, and the work of the Centre (Improvement 11).
These are important developments, and the panel is of the view that the experience and expertise
that these developments require of staff in the Centre should be given enhanced credibility. The
panel was surprised to learn that none of the Centre staff have academic appointments. This was
independently raised by academic staff who considered a Centre such as this one can best fulfil
its commitments to research and research-informed teaching by employing staff who are part of
the academic community.
Affirmation
A 5 The panel affirms the University’s intentions to align staff training and
development to the strategic priorities of the University and the needs of the
Colleges (Improvement 10) and to expand research on effective teaching and
learning (Improvement 11).
Academic and support staff
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 27
Recommendation
R 12 The panel recommends that the University strengthens the Centre for Academic
Development and e-Learning by making strategic academic staff appointments
with the appropriate research background, experience and expertise, and that
consideration be given to appointing existing staff with appropriate qualifications
and experience to academic positions.
5.4 Performance appraisal and promotion
The panel discussed with staff the annual Performance Review and Planning process and the
promotions process. Normally the annual performance review for academic staff includes
discussions on the results of the Student Evaluation of Content, Administration and Teaching
(SECAT), and contains a forward-looking planning component including discussions on
workload, professional development intentions, preparation for promotion, and feedback for staff
who were unsuccessful with promotion. Staff reported general satisfaction with this process and
regarded it as valuable and positive. Appreciation was expressed for the support shown by
Heads of Department through this process.
There was general satisfaction, too, with the implementation of the promotions policy, although
some concerns were expressed about the lack of feedback as to why applications do not succeed,
and calls for better and more systematic feedback to unsuccessful applicants. There was also a
perception that the impact of the Performance-Based Research Fund resulted in a tendency for
research to count for more in promotions than teaching, particularly at higher levels of
promotion.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
28 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
6
Institutional quality assurance
6.1 Quality assurance
The Portfolio states that the responsibility for continuous quality improvement lies with every
member of staff, and that senior managers (such as Assistant Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice-
Chancellors) are responsible for quality assurance in their areas. Interviews during the site visit
backed this statement, especially with constant reference to the responsibilities of Pro Vice-
Chancellors and Colleges for the implementation of policies and procedures related to academic
matters, and for the monitoring of research, teaching, staffing issues and data related to student
achievement.
The Portfolio states that an emphasis is placed on gathering accurate information that is valid
with an equal focus on quantitative and qualitative data. Little is reported, however, about the
mechanisms for the evaluation of data. As already noted in the Preamble, the Portfolio itself was
lacking an evidence base upon which the panel could assess its claims about quality and
performance; and section 1.4 of this report notes that the panel was informed that the University
is implementing a more co-ordinated and formal approach to institutional research into
organisational capacity and institutional performance, with a new appointment to undertake
University data gathering and evaluation. The panel was also interested to hear from members of
Council that, while they receive statistics and other data, they do not always receive
commentaries that explain the impact of that data or what is behind the statistics.
From what it read and heard, the panel came to the view that the institutional quality assurance
framework was built around University policies and procedures – many of which allowed for
freedom of interpretation and application by Colleges – the administration of surveys, and the
gathering and reporting of activities, output data and survey results. Symptomatic of this
approach was the observation in the Portfolio that reporting against targets and indicators within
the Annual report is undertaken to meet the requirements of the Education Act 1989. There was
no suggestion in the Portfolio that the Annual report has the potential to be used as an important
management instrument for the University, nor how the information it reports is evaluated and
fed into the planning cycle.
6.2 Qualification reviews
The University places emphasis on the review of qualifications to evaluate systematically the
quality and relevance of the University’s academic awards. During site visit discussions on the
maintenance and enhancement of academic standards and quality, the panel was often referred to
qualification reviews, strengthening the perception that qualification reviews are used as a
primary quality assurance and quality enhancement instrument.
A qualification review is a review of an entire academic programme and composite majors
through peer evaluation of the programme’s objectives, structure and management, teaching,
learning and assessment processes. Colleges have the responsibility to implement the
procedures, prepare the schedule of reviews to be conducted each year, and to oversee the
Institutional quality assurance
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 29
follow-up on recommendations. An implementation group is set up after each review to oversee
the implementation of the recommendations, and the group reports to the University six months
after the review on actions to be taken arising from the report. The University does not require
anything further, but the group reports to the College until every aspect is addressed. There is no
central follow-up unless the office of the Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Academic) wishes to do so.
The panel was provided with the schedule for qualification reviews, and noted that some of the
reviews had not provided follow up reports within the expected timeframe. An examination of
the documentation of a sample of qualification reviews indicated that the six-month follow-up
reports tended to be summaries of implementation plans, and that further follow-up and
monitoring of change arising from qualification reviews was then the responsibility of Colleges,
with no further accountability to the University.
Interviews with staff involved in the review progress provided examples of substantial change to
academic programmes arising from qualification reviews with the key indicators of change being
academic proposals progressing through the Academic Committee and Academic Board. It was
admitted to the panel that it was sometimes difficult to get closure, and that it was the
responsibility of the Pro Vice-Chancellor of the College to ensure that this occurs. The panel
understands that the Academic Committee has responsibility to ensure the Pro Vice-Chancellors
and Colleges complete the process.
The panel was told that meetings of the Academic Directors forum, chaired by the Assistant
Vice-Chancellor (Academic), have provided effective fora for the sharing of good academic
practice arising from qualification reviews.
The panel came to the view that, while the qualification reviews are generally effective
instruments of change, the University should be assured that the implementation of plans arising
from the reviews has been effective and in line with the expectations of the aims and purpose of
the qualifications review policy. In the view of the panel, there needs to be a closer institutional
monitoring of the follow-up to qualification reviews, with a final sign-off by Colleges and the
Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Academic), after all recommendations have been satisfactorily
addressed.
6.3 Reviews and planning
Qualification reviews have to a great extent replaced the former departmental reviews, and there
are now no systematic reviews of Colleges, schools and academic units, although special reviews
of departments and Colleges can occur as part of the College planning and resourcing process.
Colleges have not been reviewed since their establishment, and the Portfolio reports that
restructuring has occurred in four of the five Colleges. In interview, the Pro Vice-Chancellors
suggested that it has not been restructuring so much as ongoing refining of structures within the
Colleges, reconfiguring departments into schools and institutes, and realigning administrative
support services in order to reposition the Colleges to be more effective in the delivery of their
academic programmes. Much of this refining and reconfiguring arises out of College planning
activities.
Reviews of the key academic units that have responsibilities for the conduct of research and
delivery of academic programmes should be required to cover aspects of the research
environment, facilities and resource implications facing academic units contributing to the
delivery of academic programmes, which are not necessarily dealt with directly in qualification
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
30 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
reviews. The information obtained from these reviews should then be fed into the planning
process; at present, it is not clear how this might happen.
Recommendation
R 13 The panel recommends that the University develops and implements an
overarching quality assurance framework that not only includes qualification
reviews but also the systematic external reviews of key functional areas such as
Colleges, Schools, Departments and service and support departments.
Recommendation
R 14 The panel recommends that the University ensures there are strong and effective
links at institutional level between quality assurance processes (such as
qualification reviews) and strategic planning.
Management and administrative support
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 31
7
Management and administrative support
7.1 Management and communication
The Portfolio reported that the self-assessment associated with this academic audit indicated that
there were ‘opportunities’ for better cohesion between the Colleges and central services, and that
there was a perception of a divide between central services and the Colleges such that needed
services were not available or provided, and communication channels were not effective. From
interviews during the site visit, the panel was made aware of communication issues arising from
the complex matrix of three physical campuses and one ‘virtual’ campus (distance education),
and the delivery of academic programmes by five Colleges across the four campuses to varying
degrees (see section 1.1 of this report). The panel also heard of the desire to develop a better
understanding of the relationship between Council and management.
The University is attempting to address this with an initiative relating to communication and
other initiatives relating to specific aspects of management and governance. In summary, they
are:
▪ an evaluation of existing methods of communication and ways of informing staff about
initiatives and services (Improvement 1),
▪ the completion and implementation of an Optimisation of Services Delivery Project
(Improvement 2),
▪ the completion and implementation of the Guidelines for the conduct of Council and
Council subcommittees to enhance governance capability (Improvement 3),
▪ the examination of academic and managerial decision-making processes (Improvement
4),
Another area that was raised during site visit interviews was the lack of leadership and
management training which, in the view of the panel, is an urgent matter given the complexity of
the structure of the University and the reported findings of the self-assessment. The panel noted
the initiative to address leadership and management training (Improvement 12). The panel was
made aware during interviews with staff and Human Resources management that there was no
formal induction for new managers, very little management training and a lack of leadership
training. This was of concern among sectors of managerial and administrative staff. The panel
understands that there used to be in-house management training, and Human Resources is
working on a process to define management leadership with a view to developing a new
programme.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
32 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
Affirmation
A 6 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Improvement 12) to review progress
on the leadership and management training package provided through the Human
Resources Section and develop and implement an action plan to deliver the
management training required by new academic and general managers, and urges
the University to give it a high priority.
Interviews also suggested that more should be made available in the area of general staff
training.
Recommendation
R 15 The panel recommends that the University facilitates professional development
and training for all general staff, particularly in the areas of leadership and
management training.
7.2 Organisational capability and capacity
The University Investment Plan has a strategic priority with respect to its organisational
capability and capacity.
University strategic priority
SP8 Organisational capability and capacity
Enhanced international reputation and competitiveness of New Zealand’s university
sector through the optimisation of Massey University’s organisational capability and
capacity.
The Investment Plan states that, consistent with being a world-class university (which is not
defined but appears to refer to the intention to be internationally regarded as one of the top 20
universities in the Asia-Pacific region and first in selected disciplines), the University needs
supporting management practices of the highest international standard. The University needs to
ensure a sustainable resource base sufficient to pursue its primary aims, have competent,
effective and accountable staff and management at all levels, and support teaching, learning and
research activities through the provision of quality infrastructure, national shared services and
regional support activities. Key initiatives include the development of the Strategic Asset
Management Plan to support investment decisions, completion of the Information System
Strategic Plan to assess investment decisions against strategic objectives, the completion of the
services optimisation project to optimise performance, continued investment in the library
infrastructure, relocation of the College of Education from the Hokowhitu site to the Turitea site,
development and implementation of Strategic Capability Plans across the University, exploration
of opportunities for international accreditation at provider and service levels to become a
recognised provider in other countries, and investment in continuous improvement strategies.
Key performance indicators are around first-year attrition rates, qualification completion rates,
standard financial indicators, and the development and implementation of plans and projects as
set out in the key initiatives. The way these initiatives and indicators relate to the measurement
of an enhanced international reputation and competitiveness of the University is not made clear.
The Portfolio summarises the initiatives as relating to improving the ‘corporate’ capability of the
University, and notes that the opportunities for international accreditation and the recognition of
the University as a quality provider offshore will be strongly aligned to the University’s
Management and administrative support
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 33
academic specialisations and rationalisation of the academic portfolio (see section 2.1 above).
Improvement initiatives centre on the development and implementation of management and
capability plans (Improvements 27 and 28) and capital development plans for library facilities
(Improvement 29). Of these, the last has the most immediate impact on research, teaching and
learning. During site visits, the panel was told at the Albany campus of the commencement of
the extension of the library there, and heard at the Wellington campus that staff and students
were resigned to ongoing delays to the expansion of the library and provision of adequate library
facilities there.
Affirmation
A 7 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Improvement 29) to implement
agreed capital development plans for expansion of the library facilities at the
Albany and Wellington campuses.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
34 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
8
Stakeholder engagement and external
academic collaborations and partnerships
8.1 Stakeholder engagement
The primary stakeholders of the University are, of course, the students who must enjoy a
distinctive relationship with the University. They are very much part of the University
community and are key partners with academic staff in the educational endeavour. Of particular
interest to the panel, therefore, was the somewhat surprising improvement initiative, to be found
in this section of the Portfolio dealing with strategic collaboration with providers, that related to
the mechanisms used for student engagement in all aspects of the University’s operations
(Improvement 23). Clearly the panel is supportive of any activity that improves student
engagement in University operations. However, the panel is of the view that while students may
be stakeholders, they are not providers.
During the site visit, the panel interviewed external stakeholders from the City of Palmerston
North including community agencies, employers and professional associations, all of whom
found the University easy to work with and possessing an easy culture for interaction. The
stakeholders stated that the University is a great corporate citizen, and has been responsive to
meeting needs in the Māori communities. While there were concerns expressed about specific
aspects of the attributes of graduates in specific discipline areas, and the apparent reduction in
fundamental research in favour of applied research, there was, overall, an acceptance of the
standard of University graduates. It was clear from the discussion that the University enjoys a
high measure of support from outside communities and stakeholders, evidenced by the accounts
of the high level of engagement.
8.2 Strategic collaboration
The University Investment Plan has a strategic priority with respect to strategic collaboration.
University strategic priority
SP5 Strategic collaboration
Enhanced contribution to economic transformation and social development through
strategic collaboration with industry, communities and other providers.
The Investment Plan gives notice that the University will continue to enhance its contribution to
the national network of education and research provision through collaborative relationships with
industries, communities and other providers within and beyond New Zealand. Key initiatives
include further enhancement and development of partnerships with industry and communities of
interest, further development and leverage of the University’s alumni network, extending the
University’s research in the business and land-based disciplines, offering specialist services to
other educational providers, the establishment and/or further development of centres for research
excellence, exploring the establishment of a national College of Agriculture, Food and Life
Stakeholder engagement and external academic collaborations and partnerships
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 35
Sciences by working with Lincoln University, industry and the Tertiary Education Commission,
and the establishment of a Māori and Indigenous Business and Governance Consortium. Key
performance indicators centre on qualification reviews that include engagement with
stakeholders, qualifications offered in partnership with other providers, and the implementation
of the initiatives. The way the University will measure its ‘enhanced contribution to economic
transformation and social development’ arising from the implementation of the initiatives is not
made clear.
The Portfolio reported that the University prides itself on its connectedness with industry,
communities and other providers, but noted that the self-assessment process indicated difficulties
associated with the financial and human resource costs required to make collaborations work,
and acknowledged that projected benefits often remain unrealised. The panel would have been
interested to know of strategies to address these difficulties, but the University improvements in
this area do not appear to address these important issues of costs and projected benefits. Instead,
the University improvements in this area refer to two examples identified by the University as
strengths – exploring systems and processes to enhance research and knowledge transfer between
the University and centres of research excellence (Improvement 22) and working with Victoria
University of Wellington to streamline existing arrangements for programme development and
approval in the New Zealand School of Music (Improvement 21).
The panel was interested in learning more about the New Zealand School of Music on account of
its prominence in the Investment Plan (the School’s investment plan is included as an annex to
the Plan) and the statement that the School ‘will be New Zealand’s pre-eminent provider of
university-level music education, research, composition and performance’, with programmes that
‘are to be of world class’. The academic audit Portfolio claims that the School ‘continues to go
from strength to strength based on student demand’.
The School’s investment plan indicates that the academic programmes are delivered from each
university; that staff who contribute to the delivery of academic programmes in the School are
employed by the universities in which they teach; and that students are enrolled by Victoria
University of Wellington who have a Service Level Agreement which makes it possible for
Massey University to teach students at Massey University’s Conservatorium of Music. At
present, only the Director of the School and administrative staff are employed by the School. It
is proposed to build a separate purpose-built facility in central Wellington to house the School,
and to bring staff and students from both institutions into one teaching, learning and performance
space.
The panel was asked by the University and by the Victoria University of Wellington senior
management not to investigate the School of Music as part of an academic audit of Massey
University alone. This raises the question whether the New Zealand School of Music should be
the subject of a special academic audit at some later stage. The panel was disappointed not to be
able to investigate further given the emphasis placed on the School as a working collaboration
and the reported success of the School, albeit with respect to student demand only, and the panel
is unable to comment on the success or otherwise of this collaborative venture. There is interest
in this kind of inter-university collaboration, and in the details of processes and quality assurance
surrounding the development of the academic community and the development and delivery of
academic programmes in such a venture. An evaluation of the nature and effectiveness of such
processes will have to await later investigation.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
36 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
8.3 Commercialisation
The University Investment Plan has a strategic priority with respect to strategic collaboration.
University strategic priority
SP7 Commercialisation
Enhanced economic growth for New Zealand and Massey University through the
optimisation of commercial activities.
The Investment Plan reports that the University is involved in a number of commercial activities
ranging from commercialisation of intellectual property to other commercial business activities,
which assist the University generate income. Key initiatives include the implementation of a
University commercialisation framework and strengthening of connections between the
University’s portfolio of intellectual property and economic growth, further development of the
role of Massey Ventures Limited, the development of more extensive relationships between the
University and private sector agencies, and opportunities for enhancing the performance of the
University’s other commercial activities. Initiatives also include the development and
implementation of a university-wide strategy for short courses and professional development
programmes, and the establishment of a national commercial centre to support innovation and
economic transformation in agri-foods. Key performance indicators are around licensing
revenue, research and consulting income, number of licences and the implementation of the
initiatives. It appears that while these indicators measure the University’s economic growth in
this area, ways of measuring ‘enhanced economic growth for New Zealand’ are yet to be
determined, although in interview with members of Research Management Services, it was
evident that measures might include turnover signifying growth in the economy, and spin-off
companies from the commercialisation of the research.
In interview, the main benefits identified from commercialisation and the work by agencies such
as Massey Ventures Limited stem from the reputation of the University for research that can be
applied, which, in turn, will lead to further work and further funding for research. The
University’s self-assessment suggested that an understanding of commercialisation was in the
early stages of development, with an uncertainty about requirements, or whether the University
was positioned to achieve the outcomes stated in the investment plan (which are described as
‘economic growth for the university and the nation’). This was confirmed from the experience
of Research Management Services in interview, who also acknowledged that commercial
ventures do not fit within the Performance-Based Research Fund and may also not feed into
academic promotions. Nevertheless, as indicated in the Portfolio, there is a need to develop a
clear framework for commercialisation.
Affirmation
A 8 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Improvement 26) to develop a clear
framework for commercialisation that outlines the responsibilities of the
Enterprise Team within Research Management Services and Massey Ventures,
and includes an education programme for staff about commercial potential and
the assistance available to identify and capitalise on commercial opportunities.
Internationalisation
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 37
9
Internationalisation
9.1 Internationalisation strategies
The University Investment Plan has a strategic priority with respect to internationalisation.
University strategic priority
S9 Internationalisation
Enhanced economic contribution to New Zealand through implementation of Massey
University’s internationalisation strategies.
The Investment Plan identifies the University as part of an international community as well as
having national and regional responsibilities. The three major outcomes from the
implementation of this strategy are defined as:
▪ being regarded internationally as one of the top 20 universities in the Asia-Pacific
region and first in selected disciplines,
▪ attracting and retaining quality staff and high-achieving international students seeking
world-class learning and research experiences, and
▪ growing and diversifying international markets particularly through relationships with
governments, business and agencies and through building on a comprehensive
experience in distance education delivery.
Key initiatives include further market diversification, increasing efforts to secure repeat cohorts
of students from international origins, further developing the network of high-performing agents
in overseas countries, increasing participation in staff and student exchanges and customisation
of study-abroad relationships, furthering international teaching and research collaborations in
strategic areas, increasing the proportion of postgraduate international student enrolments,
further developing international research relationships and alumni networks, and delivering
international distance degree and short-course programmes in target disciplines and countries.
Key performance indicators are around Asia-Pacific rankings, international enrolments,
international student qualification completion rates, and the implementation of other key
initiatives. Measurement of the ‘enhanced economic contribution to New Zealand’ through the
implementation of the initiatives will be difficult.
The Portfolio acknowledges that the strategic priority ‘initiatives’ associated with international
student recruitment and retention, student exchange and study abroad are well-established. In
the view of the panel, these are, therefore, not initiatives. The Portfolio reports, however, that
initiatives around collaborative teaching and research arrangements and international distance
education are still at an early stage. The new administration wishes to get more clarity around
the area of internationalisation which it acknowledges has a high level of complexity, and to aim
for a targeted group of countries with which to build the strongest relationships.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
38 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
It is clear that the University is determined to proceed with distance education offshore and has
two improvement initiatives in this area. The first is to develop a framework for international
delivery initiatives that outlines areas of greatest potential and includes the accreditation and
delivery requirements of targeted countries (Improvement 31). The second is to develop
mechanisms that will provide better information about the relevance and position of Massey’s
programmes in relation to other providers, and the needs of regional and international
communities of interest (Improvement 32).
The University has a relatively long tradition of providing distance education to New Zealanders
both nationally and internationally, although as reported earlier (section 2.2) the University
community considers there is a need for increased investment in distance education, and in the e-
learning necessary to support it, if the University is to maintain its position as a distance
education provider. The panel remains to be convinced that the University’s existing capability
in distance education in New Zealand and to New Zealanders overseas necessarily positions the
University to deliver academic programmes to international students offshore in cultural settings
different from those in New Zealand.
Of more general importance to the panel were the mixed messages received from staff interviews
about their understanding of internationalisation and the internationalisation of the curriculum.
Internationalisation of the curriculum is among the priorities for the University administration,
yet from interviews, it appears that staff understanding of this concept is limited to having
international students on campus, the offering of papers offshore, international accreditation of
academic programmes, and the employment of academic staff appointed from overseas.
Recommendation
R 16 The panel recommends that the University arrives at a clear understanding of
internationalisation and internationalisation of the curriculum after discussion
with the University community, and develops a conceptual framework for the
implementation of internationalisation strategies.
The University is planning to become involved in offshore delivery of selected academic
programmes, with the first qualification being the Bachelor in Food Technology being offered in
Singapore. Programme delivery within a different cultural setting requires special support for
those involved in it and this will place extra demands on the notion of equivalence. During on-
site interviews with academic staff, it was suggested that the University worked hard to ensure
equivalence of standards and learning outcomes among the three campuses, and that the
University would have to be very careful to protect equivalence if offering academic
programmes both in New Zealand and offshore.
The University recognises the lack of training of staff for offshore delivery in that it has an
improvement initiative to develop support materials (including policy and procedures) for staff to
develop and deliver offshore programmes in a manner that manages the risk and maximises the
value to the University and its students (Improvement 30). The panel heard from staff that
support materials were needed and that special training for staff to teach offshore was just
beginning. It is the view of the panel that the University should have been more proactive in this
area, given that it appears some offshore delivery of programmes is taking place already.
Internationalisation
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 39
Affirmation
A 9 The panel affirms the University’s intention (Improvement 30) to develop support
materials (including policy and procedures) for staff to develop and deliver
offshore programmes in a manner that manages the risk and maximises the value
to the University and its students, and urges the highest priority to the
implementation of policy and procedures and to the training of academic staff.
After discussions with risk management personnel, the panel was not convinced that quality
assurance around offshore delivery and the management of risk arising from offshore delivery
have yet been properly addressed. In particular, it appears that the University has begun
operations overseas without signing contracts. Policies, procedures and quality assurance around
offshore delivery must be in place, and contracts signed before delivery offshore, and the quality
assurance arrangements should include details of alternative delivery arrangements if there are
impediments to maintaining the agreed arrangements.
Recommendation
R 17 The panel recommends that the University ensures that signed contracts are in
place prior to commencing delivery of offshore programmes and that each includes
a definitive clause on teachout strategies.
The panel noted the initiative to undertake further international teaching and research
collaborations in strategic areas. The panel was provided with a schedule of 218 ‘current off-
shore academic agreements’ with 121 universities, polytechnics and research institutes as at the
end of March 2008. An examination of the listing showed that not all agreements are current and
that the list was not up-to-date. The University acknowledged these facts. The listing includes
agreements that have expired and, in some cases, had been replaced by updated agreements, as
well as rather general memoranda of understanding that have expired and been replaced by new
agreements in more specific areas and activities. The listing does not indicate the extent to
which these agreements are active or meaningful, and there was no evidence that the value to the
University is being measured when agreements are reviewed or renewed.
The panel was told that international relationships are monitored with quarterly reports to the
senior leadership. The University acknowledged that only a proportion of the listed agreements
are valuable and active, and that the University’s intention is to raise the level of engagement and
to target ‘first tier’ universities and institutions, particularly for research partnerships, in ways
that help leverage research funding for parties to each agreement. The University is also
considering bringing cohorts of students from other countries through staircasing articulations,
and through twinning programmes.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
40 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
Acknowledgements
The panel thanks in particular Hon Steve Maharey (Vice-Chancellor), Professor
Nigel Long (Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Research)), Shelley Paewai (Academic
Policy Manager), and Malcolm Rees (Academic Quality Manager) for their support
of the audit process and for the University’s warm welcome to the audit panel. The
panel thanks all those who contributed to the University’s self-assessment process,
the compilation of the self-assessment Portfolio and the organisation associated with
the site visit. The panel is most grateful for the openness and frankness of those who
gave of their time to appear before the panel.
Audit Panel
Chair of the Panel
Professor D Gareth Jones
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and International), University of Otago
New Zealand academic member of the Panel Professor Hirini Matunga
Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Māori), Lincoln University
New Zealand non-academic member of the Panel Dr Roberta Hill
Director, WEB Research, Wellington
Overseas members of the Panel Dr Colleen Liston
Adjunct Professor, Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia
Professor V Lynn Meek
Director, L H Martin Institute of Higher Education, University of Melbourne
In attendance: John M. Jennings
Director, New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit
Appendices
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 41
Appendix 1
Massey University key improvements
Notes
▪ This listing of the University’s key improvements as identified in the University’s Portfolio associated with this
academic audit is ordered according to the Unit’s indicative framework for Cycle 4 audit. The section on
‘Internationalisation’ is extra to the Cycle 4 indicative framework to accommodate the University’s strategic
priorities.
▪ The numbering of the sections in this listing is the numbering of the sections of this report.
▪ The numbering of the improvements is in the order of improvements as summarised in the Portfolio, p.49-52.
1 General
▪ Goals, objectives and plans
University improvement 5 Underway
A revised Planning Framework with target key performance indicators is being progressively
implemented in 2008.
2 Teaching and learning
▪ Qualifications portfolio
University improvement 17 Underway
Continue to pursue professional accreditation where available and where it will enhance the relevance
and distinctiveness of the University’s offerings.
University improvement 18 Planned
Investigate the need for additional requirements around the approval of new papers and programmes to
ensure their alignment with the strategic goals set out in the Investment Plan (profile).
University improvement 19 Planned
Revisit the academic development plans for each campus (and extramural) to examine the mix of
provision and the way in which it aligns to local requirements and the overall academic portfolio.
University improvement 20 Planned
Develop mechanisms that will provide better information about the relevance and position of Massey’s
programmes in relation to the other providers, and the needs of regional and international communities
of interest. This might include the investigation of a benchmarking programme complemented by analysis
of sector data at subject level.
▪ Distance education and e-learning
University improvement 16 Planned
Implemented agreed redevelopment goals for e-learning.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
42 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
▪ Student achievement
University improvement 6 Underway
Review the definitions underpinning the generation of the University’s retention, completion and
progression reports and redevelop the reports so they can be used for accountability and improvement
purposes.
▪ Student evaluation of teaching and papers
University improvement 7 Planned
Continue to participate in discussions regarding the Australian Council for Educational Research
Australasian Survey of Student Engagement and explore continued use of the Survey at Massey
University.
University improvement 8 Underway
Implement agreed revisions to the Graduate Destination Survey Questionnaire and Methodology in 2009
to include the Graduate Surveys of Research and Course Experience.
University improvement 9 Planned
Review, update, and implement the recommendations of the Teaching Evaluation Working Party [2005]
to deliver a teaching evaluation system based upon effective practices.
3 Research environment
▪ Research capability, performance and reputation
University improvement 24 Underway
Develop a research management strategy that addresses:
* the ongoing implementation of the Research Information Management System as a central
repository including responsibility for expanding the existing services to include reporting that
will inform research improvement within the Colleges,
* the co-ordination and communication of services for research support including the Community
of Sciences Funding Opportunity Database,
* effective training opportunities so that staff and managers can learn to use and report from the
Research Information Management System,
* any additional initiatives that will be required to support the College research improvement
plans.
University improvement 25 Planned
Investigate whether the Research Information Management System can be used in conjunction with
information from Human Resources and the web Content Management System to develop and publish an
on-line expertise database.
4 Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Pasifika
▪ Kia Maia
University improvement 14 Underway
Improvement initiatives as outlined within the Kia Maia strategy
Appendices
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 43
▪ Pasifika@Massey
University improvement 15 Planned
Explore strategic collaboration internal and external to the University as a means to further develop and
achieve the goals outlined in the Pasifika@Massey strategy.
5 Academic and support staff
▪ Professional support and development
University improvement 10 Underway
Review the purpose and function of the Centre for Academic Development and e-Learning to ensure that
training and development initiatives are strongly aligned with the strategic priorities of the University
and the needs of the Colleges.
University improvement 11 Planned
Ensure that opportunities for expanding research on effective teaching and learning are explored fully
and within the context of external funds that may be available, internal research clusters within the
Colleges, and the work of the Centre for Academic Development and e-Learning.
University improvement 13 Planned
Review the administration and methodology of the Staff Surveys to ensure alignment with international
effective practices, and enhance the use of the survey outcomes at University and departmental levels.
7 Management and administrative support
▪ Management and communication
University improvement 1 Planned
Evaluate the existing methods of communication across the University and develop an action plan that
will better enable staff to remain informed about initiatives and services that are most relevant to them.
University improvement 2 Underway
Continue to implement the Optimisation of Services Delivery Project as outlined on the University’s
intranet.
University improvement 3 Underway
Complete development of the Guidelines for the conduct of Council and Council subcommittees to
enhance governance capability.
University improvement 4 Planned
Examination of the academic and managerial decision-making processes to ensure they facilitate the
achievement of agreed University priorities and initiatives.
University improvement 12 Planned
Review progress on the leadership and management training package provided through the Human
Resources Section and develop and implement an action plan to deliver the management training
required by new academic and general managers.
▪ Organisational capability and capacity
University improvement 27 Underway
Finalise the Strategic Asset Management Plan and Information Services Strategic Plan and begin
implementation of agreed priorities.
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
44 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
University improvement 28 Underway
Development and implementation of strategic capability plans supporting the University’s human
resource management.
University improvement 29 Underway
Implement agreed capital development plans for expansion of the library facilities at the Auckland and
Wellington campuses.
8 External academic collaborations and partnerships
▪ Stakeholder engagement
University improvement 23 Underway
Continue to explore effective mechanisms for student engagement in all aspects of the University’s
operations and develop action plans for implementation of agreed improvements.
▪ Strategic collaboration
University improvement 21 Planned
Work with the New Zealand School of Music and Victoria University of Wellington to streamline existing
arrangements for programme development and approval.
University improvement 22 Planned
Explore systems and processes to enhance research and knowledge transfer between the University and
the Centres of Research Excellence.
▪ Commercialisation
University improvement 26 Underway
Develop a clear framework for commercialisation that outlines the responsibilities of the Enterprise
Team and Massey Ventures, and includes an education programme for staff about commercial potential
and the assistance available to identify and capitalise on commercial opportunities.
10 Internationalisation
▪ International strategies
University improvement 30 Underway
Develop support materials (including policy and procedures) for staff to develop and deliver offshore
programmes in a manner that manages the risk and maximises the value to the University and its
students.
University improvement 31 Planned
Develop a framework for international delivery initiatives that outlines areas of greatest potential and
includes the accreditation and delivery requirements of targeted countries.
University improvement 32 Planned
Develop mechanisms that will provide better information about the relevance and position of Massey’s
programmes in relation to other providers, and the needs of regional and international communities of
interest.
Appendices
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 45
Appendix 2
Cycle 4 indicative framework
Update on the ‘mid-term’ report on Cycle 3 recommendations and university enhancement initiatives Given the focus of Cycle 3 was teaching quality, programme delivery and the achievement of learning
objectives, the university may wish to incorporate reports on recommendations and enhancement
initiatives from Cycle 3 into relevant sections that follow.
Topics Activities
1 General
2 Teaching and learning 2.1 The development, design, implementation and delivery of academic
programmes and courses that:
* develop intellectual independence,
* are relevant to the needs of the disciplines,
* are relevant to the needs of learners and other stakeholders.
2.2 The learning environment and learning support for students,
including learning support for students from targeted groups.
2.3 Student achievement and success.
3 Research environment 3.1 Research students and research supervision.
3.2 Teaching and learning within a research environment.
3.3 The interdependence of research and teaching.
3.4 The role of critic and conscience of society.
4 Te Tiriti o Waitangi 4.1 The application of the principles15
of Te Tiriti to:
* access to learning,
* curriculum.
5 Academic and support
staff
5.1 The determination of an appropriate academic staff profile across the
institution.
5.2 Recruitment, appointment and induction strategies.
5.3 The implementation and monitoring of workload models.
5.4 Professional support, development and appraisal of academic staff.
6 Institutional quality
assurance
6.1 The internal planning-implementation-reporting-evaluation-
enhancement cycle as applied to academic processes, academic
programmes and courses.
15
A discussion of the implications for universities arising from the principles of Te Tiriti is found in John M
Jennings (compiler), New Zealand universities and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Wellington, New Zealand Universities
Academic Audit Unit, 2004, ‘AAU Series on Quality’ no.4.
Available at http://www.nzuaau.ac.nz/nzuaau_site/publications/asq/Te%20Tiriti%20o%20Waitangi.pdf
Massey University academic audit report, Cycle 4, December 2008
46 New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari
Topics Activities
7 Management and
administrative support
7.1 The development of a management and administrative infrastructure
that provides effective support to research-informed teaching and
learning.
7.2 The determination of an appropriate management and administrative
staff profile.
7.3 Professional support, development and appraisal of management and
administrative staff.
8 Community
engagement
8.1 The identification of stakeholders and communities of interest, the
seeking of advice, and the application of information gained to
curriculum and student learning.
9 External academic
collaborations and
partnerships
9.1 The development of external collaborative research and academic
ventures and partnerships that impact on curriculum and student
learning and achievement.
To each of these sections, the following questions are to be applied to each of the above topics.
Commitments
What are the goals and objectives and the expected outputs and outcomes in this area and how
were they determined?
Strengths and progress
What are the key strengths in this area and what positive progress has been made in achieving
the goals and objectives?
What are the output/outcome data and other evidence used to determine strengths and to judge
progress, and how relevant and effective are they?
Challenges
What are the key challenges for the university in this area?
Monitoring
What key quality mechanisms and processes are used to monitor ongoing quality and to provide
input into continuous improvement in this area, and how effective are they?
Enhancement
Arising from the self-assessment, what are the areas in which enhancement is needed?
What enhancement activities will be undertaken during the next planning period – say, three
years – who will be responsible, and what are the expected outputs and outcomes of those
enhancement activities?
How will the university monitor the effectiveness of changes arising from the enhancement
activities?
Appendices
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit – Te Wāhanga Tātari 47
Appendix 3
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit
Terms of reference
The Unit's terms of reference are:
• to consider and review the universities’ mechanisms for monitoring and enhancing the ongoing
academic quality of academic programmes, their delivery and their learning outcomes, and the
extent to which the universities are achieving their stated aims and objectives in these areas,
• to comment on the extent to which procedures in place in individual universities are applied
effectively,
• to comment on the extent to which procedures in place in individual universities reflect good
practice in maintaining quality,
• to identify and commend to universities national and international good practice in regard to
academic quality assurance and quality enhancement,
• to assist the university sector to improve its educational quality,
• to advise the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee on quality assurance matters,
• to carry out such contract work as is compatible with its audit role.
The Unit acts as a fully independent body in the conduct of its audit activities.
Vision
• Quality New Zealand university education serving students’ futures.
Mission
To contribute to quality New Zealand university education by:
• engaging as leader and advocate in the development of quality cultures,
• applying quality assurance and quality enhancement processes that enable improvement in
student engagement, experience and learning outcomes.
Objective with respect to academic audits conducted during the period
2008-2012
• Timely completion of academic audits producing audit reports acknowledged as authoritative,
fair and perceptive, and of assistance to universities.